Attorney JoNell Thomas is making the argument that capital punishment should be ruled unconstitutional after two powerful democrats in the Legislature, who both happen to be deputy district attorneys, voted against a measure that would have repealed it. [Las Vegas Sun]
Stephen Stubbs helped a veteran who was fighting an HOA about a flagpole. [KTNV]
Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto helped broker a deal that will send the plutonium that was sent here secretly out of state in two years. [TNI]
Former Judge Phillip Pro is stepping down from the Nevada Gaming Commission and Governor Sisolak appointed Rosa Solis-Rainey in his place. [RJ]
Speakings of gaming commissions, Wynn Resorts was fined $35 million by the one in Massachusetts. [News3LV]
So JoNell is upset because the Democrat cabal that is walking in lockstep to advance a liberal agenda and reverse decades of the will of Nevada voters on constitutionally protected rights voter protections and the founders of the country but not to erase whole cloth a criminal penalty? Not a fan of either Cannizzaro or Friedman's politics, and don't think govt workers should be able to be elected to the legislature for this very issue, but she is barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 3:47 pm
Frierson's. Damn spellcheck!
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 4:29 pm
Has Sisolak appointed a man to anything? Not crying foul, just an observation
He is too much of a political animal to dare to appoint men right now. Will be a rare exception. Especially if he happens to be (heaven forbid) white. Not crying foul either. Just the current climate.
Sisolak is a quota guy. Qualifications are secondary. Governor, like all politicians, is positioning for the next election cycle.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 5:06 pm
Also, Sisolak has made very few appointments from S. Nevada and none from the County government that he ruled for 10 years. Interesting.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 5:48 pm
Speaking of women being appointed, I heard the 3 finalists for Laurel Davis's seat were announced: Brian Shapiro, Natalee Cox from Kolesar and I did not hear who the 3rd was. Anyone hear?
To:10:58. Thomas presumably does not have a problem with female appointments to vacancies. His problem was that if he has what he perceives as a solid male incumbent in a re-election situation, that the voters should not simply reject such incumbent in favor of a female candidate who all the public may really know of is her gender.
And, whatever one thinks of Thomas, I think there is something to be said for that view. But he may have picked the wrong case to make that point because Bailus was not universally beloved, and his opponent had a lot more going for her than her gender.
But there are case where a seemingly "safe" male incumbent, who has no real public baggage, loses to a female who the public knows little about aside from her gender how she looks on a campaign sign.
Actually, I used to have no problem with that approach as we had very few females on the bench, and I was a firm believer that they needed to be elected, even at the occasional cost of a decent male incumbent losing his re-election bid.
But now, with half, or more than half, of judicial positons being held by females, there is simply no real point for a significant pro-female bias.
If we wish to address inequities, we should note there are very few people of color on the bench–just a few Latins and a few African Americans. This situation improved aa little with an appointment of a couple years ago with the appointment of Tierra Jones. I'm not taking a position as to whether or not she is a great judge, I'm just mentioning that we were long overdue to add another African American to the bench, as we only had Tim Williams, I believe. Family Court, by the way, does not even have one African American among its 20 seats.
Shapiro is from Las Vegas. He has been involved in all sorts of bk cases from 7, 11 and 13. He represents creditors, debtors, trustees and is one of the chapter 7/11 bankruptcy trustees. Natalie Cox worked with Nile Leatham as a creditor's attorney in Las Vegas and as a govt attorney in Delaware. She is now an assistant united states trustee back east. I thought the third person was someone local, but recently found out I was incorrect. I don't know number 3.
So 2:51— So if #3 is not local and #2 currently is an Assistant Trustee in Delaware, we only have 1 local candidate out of 3 for a local BK Seat? Does the selection committee hate Candace Carlyon that much?
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 6:04 pm
The problem with capital punishment is that even when it is ordered, the cases meander for 14 years(sometimes even a lot more) costing millions to the
tax payers for all the appeals dealt with by capital team public defenders, and capital team district attorneys, etc.
That is why even some district attorneys who may personally believe in capital punishment for extreme cases, believe that it should be abolished if it is going to continue to mean nothing but a decades long waste of millions while the defendant waits on death row.
Now places like Florida and Texas, and a few others, are a bit different, but for most states it is an endless sojourn which drains the taxpayers.
Therefore the debate of whether we should maintain capital punishment, or abolish it, remains a stupid and misleading question. No one, presumably, is a supporter of capital punishment as it generally proceeds in many states, including Nevada, where after many years and untold millions very few of these people are ever put to death.
Instead the question should be if capital punishment is totally revamped and made a lot more streamlined and less expensive, would you support it?
If the general hue and cry is that we cannot possibly significantly stream line it and still maintain basic due process, then I suppose it should be abolished.
But, as for due process, one must wonder. Does due process really require, in most of these cases, multiple appeals and a decade or two in and out of court? Are the trial courts truly that frought with reversible error in these cases? If the first few appeals in a case actually deal with errors at the trial court, and most of the subsequent appeals deal increasingly with general constitutional concerns about capital punishment, then this is a part of the system that is truly broken.
I hope some criminal law attorneys weigh in to shed light on all this.
Not a criminal attorney, but due process really does require all of these appeals because once the state executes someone, there's no going back, there's no "whoops, we found this exculpatory evidence" etc.
When you're gonna kill someone, due process requires that you make sure you're not fucking it up.
And therein reveals the defect in the death penalty. If the basis of the State taking the life of the defendant (executing him/her) is that the defendant took the life of an innocent, how should the State be dealt with when it takes the life of a defendant that was actually innocent (wrongfully convicted despite all due process protections being observed)? Does the State then also need to be executed (terminated) for taking the life of an innocent person?
Granted that is a philosophical question that is essentially unanswerable but in the interest of intellectual honesty something to ponder.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 6:08 pm
In response to 11:04, I still support it for the most extreme, horrific cases. But, admittedly, the way it often proceeds in Nevada and many other states, does make it largely pointless, and even counter-productive.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 6:34 pm
There have been too many exonerations and penalty reversals to trust that a "streamlined" system would allow for confidence in the results. I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I think capital punishment is simply immoral so that's my bias. It is too subjective. When Jeremy Strohmyer doesn't get the death penalty and a non-shooter does, the system just can't be trusted. "Streamlining" it will prevent the thorough investigation which has resulted in the reversals and pardons from occurring. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is an issue in almost every death penalty case. Turning up that evidence requires skill, time and resources. There is not one defendant on Death Row with retained counsel.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 7:22 pm
To: 11:34. Although, in the past, I have not been totally opposed to C.P. in the most extreme and horrific cases, because of the often random and arbitrary factors you point out, I currently have very little faith in that aspect of the criminal justice system, and now oppose capital punishment..
As you suggest,if someone driving the getaway car in a botched robbery where someone is killed, receives capitol punishment as a result of felony murder application,and Strohmeyer does not, yes, we have a real problem. Strohmeyer's the POS that killed that 7-year-old little girl in a washroom in Primm, just to see what it would be like to kill someone.
BTW did that sister/brother team(Mastisas, or something like that)receive a death verdict? If they didn't, then what would be the purpose of having capital punishment as an option if neither they, nor Strohmeyer, received a death verdict? No cases more richly deserved it, if we are going to retain a death verdict as an option.
As to this Mastisas matter(I know I got the name wrong)the brother/sister team were in Mesquite, I believe, and they were apparently upset about a young woman and her boyfriend supposedly ripping them off in a drug deal. So when the young woman was gone from her trailer, this brother/sister team broke in and butchered the young woman's three year-old daughter and permanently crippled her ten-year-old daughter. Truly horrific beyond belief. If those two vermin were in Texas or Florida, they would have been exterminated by now. Oh..I forgot.. forgive me,…I just got through saying I am now opposed to capital punishment. But if I can indulge myself an exception, that would be one case where it would be so richly deserved. And Strohmeyer would be the second exception.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 7:35 pm
This post,11:34, demonstrates just how emotional this issue can be for many, including attorneys.
The post starts out in a fairly reasoned manner, during the first couple paragraphs, discussing why the poster has by now become opposed to capital punishment.
But the poster eventually discusses two cases where it appears they would be pleased to see a couple particular defendants fry.
And those were indeed a couple of the worse cases I remember since I moved to Vegas. The butchering of young children will always be the cases that shock people to the core, far more than horrific cases involving adult victims. That's just the way it is, I guess. I certainly understand and agree.
But this demonstrates the separation of the mind from the heart. The poster's intellect and reasoning explain why they are now opposed to capital punishment. But the poster's heart and emotions then take over, and subvert the intellect, and the poster than seems to be suggesting that there should be exceptions in the most extreme cases. But that remains the big problem. Capital punishment should either be abolished or not. There is no real middle ground.
We can't say it should be abolished except for the most extreme cases because:(1) That amounts to not abolishing it; and:(2) It purportedly already is only reserved for the most extreme of cases.
So, if we say it should only be available in the most extreme of circumstances, that means it is in no way being largely abolished, but is instead merely inviting subjective debate as to where certain cases fit on the "most extreme" continuum.
Guest
Anonymous
May 1, 2019 8:02 pm
My comment shows how far apart people can be. An ad came up on my computer about how President Trump said we need to execute drug dealers. So I thought it was asking me for a donation and I was prepared to make a small $100 donation. Then at the end it said "Impeach Trump" apparently thinking that I was supposed to be horrified by his words. Many of us are far apart.
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2019 12:10 am
I am not sure what to do. We are so fucked on this brief. My client and my partner are stroking out right now.
Fucked in what sense? No time to get the work done? The other side is 100% correct and your side is 100% wrong?
Probably talk to your partner first, but try to see if you can get another lawyer (who was not involved in the case) to look at it and see if they can see any way out or whether they agree that you are fucked.
If you are fucked, you need to evaluate: (1) how you got into this situation in the first place; (2) If you are ethically obligated to withdraw / amend something you filed that got you into this position, and whether that will make the problem go away (even if you have to swallow your pride); and (3) what kind of damage control is possible, e.g., can you settle.
Whatever you do, do SOMETHING. Make a plan and execute it. Or ask for help / what to do from someone who can actually help you, rather than some anonymous poster on this blog. Don't procrastinate trying to figure out what to do, because that only makes things worse.
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2019 1:38 am
You must just be tired bc late in the day, you could write a huge brief in 3 weeks, go home, rest, hit it hard tomorrow, that's my advice
What I think 5:10 is getting at is that he/she's got plenty of time to write a "huge brief," but that it'll be filled with dog poo because they have zero credible arguments. My advice, strive mightily, but acknowledge that sometimes your clients put themselves in situations where they're supposed to lose.
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2019 3:03 am
I refuse to believe NC and JF would allow their professional obligations to influence them as the suit alleges and I say that as someone who wants the death penalty abolished.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 2:56 pm
Did JoNell write this brief just for kicks and giggles? How is this a valid argument? How is this different than when we had conservative Republicans running the show a few years ago?
So JoNell is upset because the Democrat cabal that is walking in lockstep to advance a liberal agenda and reverse decades of the will of Nevada voters on constitutionally protected rights voter protections and the founders of the country but not to erase whole cloth a criminal penalty? Not a fan of either Cannizzaro or Friedman's politics, and don't think govt workers should be able to be elected to the legislature for this very issue, but she is barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Frierson's. Damn spellcheck!
Has Sisolak appointed a man to anything? Not crying foul, just an observation
He is too much of a political animal to dare to appoint men right now. Will be a rare exception. Especially if he happens to be (heaven forbid) white. Not crying foul either. Just the current climate.
Not that I know of. Women in literally every position appointed so far. And younger women.
Sisolak is a quota guy. Qualifications are secondary. Governor, like all politicians, is positioning for the next election cycle.
Also, Sisolak has made very few appointments from S. Nevada and none from the County government that he ruled for 10 years. Interesting.
Speaking of women being appointed, I heard the 3 finalists for Laurel Davis's seat were announced: Brian Shapiro, Natalee Cox from Kolesar and I did not hear who the 3rd was. Anyone hear?
I would like to hear what Dave Thomas and Mark Bailus have to say about the all female appointments to the bench.
Bailus will have to style his hair for an hour before answering the question
Bailus styles with Aqua Net, just like Kephart.
To:10:58. Thomas presumably does not have a problem with female appointments to vacancies. His problem was that if he has what he perceives as a solid male incumbent in a re-election situation, that the voters should not simply reject such incumbent in favor of a female candidate who all the public may really know of is her gender.
And, whatever one thinks of Thomas, I think there is something to be said for that view. But he may have picked the wrong case to make that point because Bailus was not universally beloved, and his opponent had a lot more going for her than her gender.
But there are case where a seemingly "safe" male incumbent, who has no real public baggage, loses to a female who the public knows little about aside from her gender how she looks on a campaign sign.
Actually, I used to have no problem with that approach as we had very few females on the bench, and I was a firm believer that they needed to be elected, even at the occasional cost of a decent male incumbent losing his re-election bid.
But now, with half, or more than half, of judicial positons being held by females, there is simply no real point for a significant pro-female bias.
If we wish to address inequities, we should note there are very few people of color on the bench–just a few Latins and a few African Americans. This situation improved aa little with an appointment of a couple years ago with the appointment of Tierra Jones. I'm not taking a position as to whether or not she is a great judge, I'm just mentioning that we were long overdue to add another African American to the bench, as we only had Tim Williams, I believe. Family Court, by the way, does not even have one African American among its 20 seats.
Dave Thomas threw Justice Cadish under the bus. Wonder what she has to say about it?
There is no Natalie Cox at Kolesar, …. she moved out of state years ago. I don't know who the other two are.
Shapiro is from Las Vegas. He has been involved in all sorts of bk cases from 7, 11 and 13. He represents creditors, debtors, trustees and is one of the chapter 7/11 bankruptcy trustees. Natalie Cox worked with Nile Leatham as a creditor's attorney in Las Vegas and as a govt attorney in Delaware. She is now an assistant united states trustee back east. I thought the third person was someone local, but recently found out I was incorrect. I don't know number 3.
Who looked good on a judicial election billboard? Cadish?
Fuck no, that a joke.
So 2:51— So if #3 is not local and #2 currently is an Assistant Trustee in Delaware, we only have 1 local candidate out of 3 for a local BK Seat? Does the selection committee hate Candace Carlyon that much?
The problem with capital punishment is that even when it is ordered, the cases meander for 14 years(sometimes even a lot more) costing millions to the
tax payers for all the appeals dealt with by capital team public defenders, and capital team district attorneys, etc.
That is why even some district attorneys who may personally believe in capital punishment for extreme cases, believe that it should be abolished if it is going to continue to mean nothing but a decades long waste of millions while the defendant waits on death row.
Now places like Florida and Texas, and a few others, are a bit different, but for most states it is an endless sojourn which drains the taxpayers.
Therefore the debate of whether we should maintain capital punishment, or abolish it, remains a stupid and misleading question. No one, presumably, is a supporter of capital punishment as it generally proceeds in many states, including Nevada, where after many years and untold millions very few of these people are ever put to death.
Instead the question should be if capital punishment is totally revamped and made a lot more streamlined and less expensive, would you support it?
If the general hue and cry is that we cannot possibly significantly stream line it and still maintain basic due process, then I suppose it should be abolished.
But, as for due process, one must wonder. Does due process really require, in most of these cases, multiple appeals and a decade or two in and out of court? Are the trial courts truly that frought with reversible error in these cases? If the first few appeals in a case actually deal with errors at the trial court, and most of the subsequent appeals deal increasingly with general constitutional concerns about capital punishment, then this is a part of the system that is truly broken.
I hope some criminal law attorneys weigh in to shed light on all this.
Not a criminal attorney, but due process really does require all of these appeals because once the state executes someone, there's no going back, there's no "whoops, we found this exculpatory evidence" etc.
When you're gonna kill someone, due process requires that you make sure you're not fucking it up.
And therein reveals the defect in the death penalty. If the basis of the State taking the life of the defendant (executing him/her) is that the defendant took the life of an innocent, how should the State be dealt with when it takes the life of a defendant that was actually innocent (wrongfully convicted despite all due process protections being observed)? Does the State then also need to be executed (terminated) for taking the life of an innocent person?
Granted that is a philosophical question that is essentially unanswerable but in the interest of intellectual honesty something to ponder.
In response to 11:04, I still support it for the most extreme, horrific cases. But, admittedly, the way it often proceeds in Nevada and many other states, does make it largely pointless, and even counter-productive.
There have been too many exonerations and penalty reversals to trust that a "streamlined" system would allow for confidence in the results. I'm a criminal defense lawyer and I think capital punishment is simply immoral so that's my bias. It is too subjective. When Jeremy Strohmyer doesn't get the death penalty and a non-shooter does, the system just can't be trusted. "Streamlining" it will prevent the thorough investigation which has resulted in the reversals and pardons from occurring. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is an issue in almost every death penalty case. Turning up that evidence requires skill, time and resources. There is not one defendant on Death Row with retained counsel.
To: 11:34. Although, in the past, I have not been totally opposed to C.P. in the most extreme and horrific cases, because of the often random and arbitrary factors you point out, I currently have very little faith in that aspect of the criminal justice system, and now oppose capital punishment..
As you suggest,if someone driving the getaway car in a botched robbery where someone is killed, receives capitol punishment as a result of felony murder application,and Strohmeyer does not, yes, we have a real problem. Strohmeyer's the POS that killed that 7-year-old little girl in a washroom in Primm, just to see what it would be like to kill someone.
BTW did that sister/brother team(Mastisas, or something like that)receive a death verdict? If they didn't, then what would be the purpose of having capital punishment as an option if neither they, nor Strohmeyer, received a death verdict? No cases more richly deserved it, if we are going to retain a death verdict as an option.
As to this Mastisas matter(I know I got the name wrong)the brother/sister team were in Mesquite, I believe, and they were apparently upset about a young woman and her boyfriend supposedly ripping them off in a drug deal. So when the young woman was gone from her trailer, this brother/sister team broke in and butchered the young woman's three year-old daughter and permanently crippled her ten-year-old daughter. Truly horrific beyond belief. If those two vermin were in Texas or Florida, they would have been exterminated by now. Oh..I forgot.. forgive me,…I just got through saying I am now opposed to capital punishment. But if I can indulge myself an exception, that would be one case where it would be so richly deserved. And Strohmeyer would be the second exception.
This post,11:34, demonstrates just how emotional this issue can be for many, including attorneys.
The post starts out in a fairly reasoned manner, during the first couple paragraphs, discussing why the poster has by now become opposed to capital punishment.
But the poster eventually discusses two cases where it appears they would be pleased to see a couple particular defendants fry.
And those were indeed a couple of the worse cases I remember since I moved to Vegas. The butchering of young children will always be the cases that shock people to the core, far more than horrific cases involving adult victims. That's just the way it is, I guess. I certainly understand and agree.
But this demonstrates the separation of the mind from the heart. The poster's intellect and reasoning explain why they are now opposed to capital punishment. But the poster's heart and emotions then take over, and subvert the intellect, and the poster than seems to be suggesting that there should be exceptions in the most extreme cases. But that remains the big problem. Capital punishment should either be abolished or not. There is no real middle ground.
We can't say it should be abolished except for the most extreme cases because:(1) That amounts to not abolishing it; and:(2) It purportedly already is only reserved for the most extreme of cases.
So, if we say it should only be available in the most extreme of circumstances, that means it is in no way being largely abolished, but is instead merely inviting subjective debate as to where certain cases fit on the "most extreme" continuum.
My comment shows how far apart people can be. An ad came up on my computer about how President Trump said we need to execute drug dealers. So I thought it was asking me for a donation and I was prepared to make a small $100 donation. Then at the end it said "Impeach Trump" apparently thinking that I was supposed to be horrified by his words. Many of us are far apart.
I am not sure what to do. We are so fucked on this brief. My client and my partner are stroking out right now.
What type of brief? For what Court? When due? Obviously not asking for confidential info, just trying to offer real advice.
Little over three weeks.
Fucked in what sense? No time to get the work done? The other side is 100% correct and your side is 100% wrong?
Probably talk to your partner first, but try to see if you can get another lawyer (who was not involved in the case) to look at it and see if they can see any way out or whether they agree that you are fucked.
If you are fucked, you need to evaluate: (1) how you got into this situation in the first place; (2) If you are ethically obligated to withdraw / amend something you filed that got you into this position, and whether that will make the problem go away (even if you have to swallow your pride); and (3) what kind of damage control is possible, e.g., can you settle.
Whatever you do, do SOMETHING. Make a plan and execute it. Or ask for help / what to do from someone who can actually help you, rather than some anonymous poster on this blog. Don't procrastinate trying to figure out what to do, because that only makes things worse.
You must just be tired bc late in the day, you could write a huge brief in 3 weeks, go home, rest, hit it hard tomorrow, that's my advice
What I think 5:10 is getting at is that he/she's got plenty of time to write a "huge brief," but that it'll be filled with dog poo because they have zero credible arguments. My advice, strive mightily, but acknowledge that sometimes your clients put themselves in situations where they're supposed to lose.
I refuse to believe NC and JF would allow their professional obligations to influence them as the suit alleges and I say that as someone who wants the death penalty abolished.
Did JoNell write this brief just for kicks and giggles? How is this a valid argument? How is this different than when we had conservative Republicans running the show a few years ago?