- Quickdraw McLaw
- 49 Comments
- 212 Views
- Here’s an opinion piece on whether the ACLU’s suit is helping or hurting indigent criminal defendants in rural Nevada. [TNI]
- Opening statements this week in the Bundy trial. [RJ]
- With lots of questions about the drugs to be used, is an execution going to happen in Nevada this month? [RJ]
Nearly every sentence of Orrin J. H. Johnson's opinion piece is wrong. For starters it reads like it was written by someone who has never tried a civil case. Second, it compares salaried Washoe County PD to contract attorneys. Third, it misses the point of the lawsuit that insufficient resources are provided for rural defense. Fourth, it misses the point that in real rural Nevada (i.e. not Washoe), judges and prosecutors use pre-trial detention as punishment. So that's the first few paragraphs. I can't even …
Ralston would welcome a counterpoint op ed.
Agree w 7:55….I couldn't get through the whole piece. Garbage.
This is written by someone who has never tried a case of any type at any level, who does not understand that "the Rurals" are not Washoe County. I cannot even begin to list all of the problems with this piece.
Yes. Listing the problems with this piece would be extremely time-consuming. A much quicker, and simpler exercise would be that of identifying points in the article which are correct and/or make practical sense.
Ultimately, the argument of whether it helps or hinders rural criminal defendant's doesn't matter because none of it will have any real life effect.
One could make a theoretical or scholarly point, based on the article, that if several positive contingencies stressed in the article actually all occur, that down the road that could ultimately help some of these people.
But the practical answer is that most of those contingencies will not occur because they are all tied directly, and a few a bit more indirectly, to the compelling need for greater resources. A lot more money and a lot more lawyers are necessary. Shifting Public Defenders, part of the time, from a larger county to a smaller one is an idea I have heard floated, but it ultimately makes no sense because you would then need resources for additional public defenders in the larger counties, because some of the larger county's existing public defenders are being used to a large extent in the smaller counties under these proposals. So, moving around resources doesn't change anything, as it all needs to be equalized out. If you take resources form Place #1 to shift to Place#2, you must replenish Place#1.
That's what that convoluted article appears to ultimately ignore. Shifting and spreading out of resources does not help, if what is actually needed is a major infusion of much needed, new resources.
If I have real ratty furniture, but wish to create the impression that I have really nice furniture, I cannot accomplish this by merely shifting the furniture around in the room in the hope of obtaining an arrangement which is significantly more pleasing to visitors. It will not work. The only way to significantly improve my furniture situation is to commit the resources to purchase quality, new furniture.(which I have still not done, so I am still foolishly trying to arrange my ratty furniture in a more appealing way).
I'm not taking a position on whether we should make this mass commitment of resources to address these problems in the smaller counties, I am merely stating the obvious–for those who do want to meaningfully improve these situations, much more money needs to be allocated from the legislature–whether to create more PD offices in these smaller areas, or have more money available to send contract attorneys from one county to another to represent these folks, or whatever is needed.
There is already a Nevada State Public Defender. Frankly, indigent defense should be taken out of the hands of local policy makers and given to the State. It is not a perfect solution but there will immediately be more accountability and oversight.
And of course, nothing matters without more money. But having 9 counties each having their own private contract attorneys is proven not to be the answer. The contracts either get handed out based on lowest cost or favoritism, neither of which works in the long run.
Gideon requires the state to shoulder the responsibility.
This doofus claims to be a prosecutor in rural counties but works in Carson City. He claims statistics in the ACLU lawsuit are wrong but then does nothing more than insert a link without any citation of that is wrong. He wrote in nice sentences however, even if they are complete baloney.
1130 today is the Geraldine Kirk-Hughes argument online
https://nvcourts.gov/EventDetails.aspx?eventID=98704
Yes and after having read the briefs, I hope the Supreme Court gets rid of that ridiculous six-year suspension and disbars her for “misappropriating” her clients’ funds for her own purposes. The real frustration is why isn’t the DA’s office prosecuting attorneys who have committed such violations?
I have had many encounters with GKH over the years and will be watching today's proceedings with much anticipation.
She had many valid procedural and due process points that will get completely lost in the fact that she perpetrated a huge fraud (directly and through minions around her) in defrauding an old man. She is the wrong messenger to get the OBC reined in and ultimately I fear today's case is going to set lawyer discipline back to the Dark Ages. So while there is not a harsh enough punishment for what a bad human being GKH is, the waterfall effect which her case is going to have on other cases.
The fact that she is arguing it herself will prove the adage about someone representing themselves having a fool for a client. Geraldine, you have the money. Hire Bill Terry or Dennis Kennedy or even Mike Warhola. Please do not argue this yourself.
GKH is a master bullshitter. Really talented actually. And that works when your judges are of the same generation and you all know each other personally. It will be interested to see how that style plays out today. 25 minutes to kickoff!
According to the briefs, she had Bill Terry. There is likely a reason he chose not to assist her with the appeal . . .
The courtroom is dark. Anyone with a link to the feed?
Never mind they just sat down,
Chapter 239A specifically provides "6. The examination by or disclosure to any governmental regulatory agency of financial records which relate solely to the exercise of its regulatory function if the agency is specifically authorized by law to examine, audit or require reports of financial records of financial institutions." Kirk-Hughes' argument is absolutely misplaced.
She did have Bill Terry but she did not want to pay him from my understanding. God, Geraldine, you are making this painful.
Wow this is difficult to listen to. Fool for a client …
Oh my fucking god did she just start with a quote? That's what high school students think attorneys should do.
Yeah Janeen, what were you thinking? Honestly she was thinking that I do not get oral argument very often. Nonetheless Janeen is not a shrieking banshee unlike GKH.
tough room
Justice Gibbons hit on the issue. While the rules do not cap suspensions, it has always been 5 years and then disbarment.
Anyone remember what Joe Bunin did wrong?
http://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevLawyer_Jan_2014_BCR_10.pdf
Informal poll: does the 6 year suspension stand or does the NSC disbar GKH?
I think they will disbar.
He stopped responding and effectively abandoned his practice. As you can see, the amounts in controversy in his case were relatively small. It was the fact that there were a number of complaints and his failure to participate in the proceedings.
However his 7 year suspension was reduced to 4.5. I suspect GKH is on her way out. Her facts are ugly compared to Joe. She has multiple prior disciplinary offenses. And the argument before the Court never got to the five days of testimony outside of the bank records. Even without the bank records, her facts are dreadful.
12:30— Reading the briefs (as well as the civil Complaint filed against her), it is ugly. I think they disbar. Findings of Fact get deference by the NSC; discipline is de novo. I think the NSC moves to change SCR 102 to suspensions up to 5 years. Suspensions greater than 5 years are a disbarment.
Does anyone know what happened at the Geraldine Kirk-Hughes oral argument? Could not pull it up on live stream. The Nevada Supreme Court site is difficult at times and does not respond. There are a lot of issues regarding bar counsel and how they handle cases. Just wonder if they will reach any of this stuff.
All of the above comments from LawyerBird relate to the oral argument this morning. It was a cluster. SBN did not make a great impression but GKH was a shrieking banshee. There are HUGE issues with the OBC but this will not be a case in which any of those issues come to light.
All I could get on the live stream is audio. Video was blacked out. GKH kept hitting on 239A which she evidently raised for the first time on reply. As noted above, 239A has a specific exemption for Regulatory bodies. Particularly on Rebuttal, GKH sounded as if she knew it was not going well for her. Given the six year suspension, they may flatly disbar her. If they don't she at very least will be required to take the bar exam to begin practicing again.
NSC arguments lately have been 60 seconds of video at which time the screen goes black and its only audio. We live in 2017 and cannot get it right.
Were there any other issues of abuse by the OBC in GKH's case other than what was argued in the hearing? I started listening to the hearing late and didn't hear anything other than the 239A arguments which didn't seem to be favorable to GKH. I would hope that if there were other issues with the OBC's handling that the NSC would be able to address them.
Not really. GKH went after the 239 issues, which honestly was a mistake because she was losing them. The Court seemed generically interested in what standard of due process should the SBN accord an attorney. Janeen did a good job of emphasizing that attorneys should be given as broad of a right to defend themselves as possible, which is great as a public position but we all know does not happen in hearings.
I only skimmed the briefing, but I did listen to the oral argument and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. The SBN attorney was not perfect, but dominated oral argument in my opinion. One of the justices asked what is the standard punishment beyond a 5 year suspension (the answer is disbarment, BTW), not a good omen for GKH, IMO. The justices didn't ask a lot of questions, which I suspect means they see this one as clear-cut.
For those of you waiting on the Nevada Supreme Court to issue a Decision in your case, the last week has been pretty much nothing but sentence time calculation decisions pursuant to Williams v. State. Probably going to be while before they get back to other cases.
We are used to waiting on the NSC anyhow, so what is a few more months?
Got my first official Abbi Silver for NSC email just now.
Just say no.
She's just plain rude from the bench. I can't get over that enough to care about her qualifications.
She is not judicial. She does not really dig into the issues and have a bigger perspective like we would want from a Justice. No.
The ultimate issue is not whether she is really qualified for the position or whether or not she really deserves it, the question is whether she will be elected.
Her ascension has been largely unfettered. She is elected to Mun. Ct., then elected to Justice Ct., then elected to District Court without opposition, then appointed to COA.
She is a relentless, unstoppable political machine, very driven, great connections, great financial support each time she runs, high name recognition,female, sitting judge on the highest court below NSC, etc.
So, all the discussion, each time she relentlessly climbs another step in the ladder, that she is not that great a judge or does not have a great demeanor or whatever, is nothing but meaningless static.
No one really viable or well-funded ever runs against her, and that will probably be the case once again.
Anyone watching the ADKT hearings? Stan sounds really old or sick.
I think he had a stroke. He cannot hear. He does not know what he talking about. I watched and he was so doddering that the Court sent him away to go make corrections to his rules.
I think that assessment is a little harsh. First, although he is a somewhat older attorney, I would not call him "old" by any means. There are attorneys practicing who are 85 or so, and I guess they can be characterized as "old" if need be. I consider him in the range of upper middle-age to older. If you consider someone Stan Hunterton's age to, by definition, to be "old", it may be on account of perspective–such as if you are only about 30 or 35.
I also think it is a bit exaggerated to say that he was so doddering and unfocused that the Court was eager to send him on his way and conclude the hearing.
That said, I will concede your point, after having observed him in court years ago, that he does not seem the same. There did seem to be some problems with either always hearing clearly and/or fully comprehending what was being asked. I grant you that. And I don't have personal knowledge as to whether he had a stroke, but, again, he did seem somewhat slower, and more tentative in presentation, to some degree of measure.
So, I certainly see your points to some degree, but I would not go nearly as far as you and conclude that he did not know what he was talking about.
However, when the NSC wants to laser focus on something, and their questions and commentary indicate that, it is imperative to follow their lead rather than pursuing something tangential.
And, yes, he often did not really appear to take their lead and focus on what they thought was important.
That all said, while no masterpiece of jurisprudence, I found his presentation to be more relevant and focused than his adversary.
I'm a little astonished that with something of this magnitude, neither attorney seemed to really focus on the rules or facts which are critical, and probably dispositive.
Who was the adversary on the ADKT hearing? Isn't this a public comment review, and not an adversarial proceding?
The ADKT hearings were vetting proposed redline amendments to the SCR's. The proceeding isn't adversarial; it's an exchange about where the language in the proposed rule revisions and whether they need adjustment. Advocacy by Hunterton would have been out of place. It was a discussion, that's all. The acoustics in the CC courtroom are difficult.
Adversary? What were you watching? It was a public comment on two ADKTs. There was adversary. There were no facts, just amendments to two Supreme Court Rules.
no adversary*.