The Eighth Judicial District Court issued Administrative Order 21-04 which indicates that appearances by alternative means (i.e. Blue Jeans) is still preferred and that fully vaccinated people don’t have to wear masks outside of the designated mask-required areas (i.e. courtrooms until such time as the CDC doesn’t require masks for unvaccinated people).
A new law aims to aggressively reduce municipal water usage. [TNI]
Nevada gains in criminal justice reform are lauded at forum. [Las Vegas Sun]
Governor Sisolak signed a bill into law that decriminalizes most traffic offenses. [RJ]
Judge Michael Villani agreed to issue an execution order. [RJ]
AB 254 will allow college athletes to profit off their name, image, and/or likeness. [Nevada Current]
A reader wants your input on judges issuing tentative opinions before arguments. Does it work for you? Does it cut down on wasted time?
Tentative rulings is very much a thing in California, but I've not seen it formalized or widely adopted in Nevada. I've seen some judges announce at the outset of oral argument their initial thoughts, but nothing so formal as written tentative rulings as is widely the case in California.
I grew up in So Cal Courts. Some courts would have tentatives laying out, others you had to ask the clerk on check in. You would be surprised at how many lawyers never asked to see the tentative.
But, yes. I like having a tentative. You can see the logic developed by the court or law clerk and thereby know what to argue.
Courts not providing tentative could signal that the judge has not read the briefs and is going to wing the hearing. A department that routinely does not provid a tentative is a sign that the judge is lazy.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 5:26 pm
Very few judges can issue a tentative opinion without emboldening one side or the other. That makes it nearly impossible to come to any kind of compromise. I've seen cases in front of judges like Forsberg where she emboldens one party with a tentative or temporary ruling and then doing ANYTHING in the case becomes a major production because she's already conveyed to that party that they win no matter what. On the other hand some judges are really good at telegraphing where they see the case going and what the weaknesses and strengths are on both sides without necessarily indicating to either side that they're winning. Duckworth is really good at that in motion hearings. It enables you to counsel your client and it prevents either side from thinking they're necessarily winning so settlement can sometimes still be achieved. I guess in the balance, I'm not in favor of tentative rulings because so few judges can actually issue them without f-ing up the case and ruining any chance of settlement.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 5:41 pm
I don't think tentative rulings are need, I think our judges need to decide most motions on the pleadings and only have hearings when they have real questions like they do in Federal Court. Most oral arguments are a huge waste of time. This of course, will never happen because it would require judges to actually read the pleadings and then write detailed orders, which they would never do.
Man, I recall spending tons of time preparing for oral argument, just to have the judge pull out a pre-drafted order and read it into the record. Even when I won I felt like I had wasted a ton of time.
In my role as a short trial judge, I rarely hold hearings on law and motion matters. Unless I have questions (which means one attorney or the other failed to address all necessary issues), I can rule from the motion/opposition/reply. Zoom/BlueJeans makes holding a hearing easier for all concerned, but if a hearing is not needed, I rule on the papers.
Unfortunately, some of us bring such frivolous motions that I can decide them on their face without even reading any opposition. Filing such frivolous motions can result in a compulsory donation to the Law Library under Rule 11!
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 6:17 pm
I've always favored disclosing the bench memo in appellate cases. I worked for the NSC and I know how wrong the memos can be. Since there is so little time alloted for argument, seeing the bench memo would allow counsel to focus the argument.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 6:25 pm
Can we have a heightened standard for death penalty that shortens the process? Like, if there's dozens of witnesses and video that it was you who murdered people in a grocery store, there's not as much needed on appeal as someone who was convicted on circumstancial evidence?
If you're 100% unquestionably guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond really a shadow of a doubt, maybe we can move it along a little bit quicker.
Super Duper Convincing Evidence? Beyond doubt? I dunno, just spitballing here.
Obviously this wouldn't fix the problem of the death penalty being disproportionately applied based on on race, but maybe it speeds things up where there is really no question as to guilt.
It's disproportionately deserved bc a higher percent of AA commit violent crimes than non-AA, if the penalties weren't "mitigated" due to raccueial brainwashing there would be even more AA on death row, cue the virtue-signaling woke liberals..
I've thought about the same thing many times. I would be nice instead of mocking the idea by using terms like "Super Duper Convincing Evidence", that lawyers would actually respond in a thoughtful manner about a proposed new standard that could apply in death penalty cases.
"Beyond Any Doubt" sounds like a good standard to use.
11:25/1:13 here, I was being fascetious about "super duper"
I appreciate the other comments and suggestions. I think Beyond Any Doubt is a good starting place too
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 6:35 pm
Many of the reversals in death penalty cases come from the failure of counsel to present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase. So many times, when the case hits federal court years after the conviction (direct appeal and post-conviction and post-conviction appeal), new evidence is turned up of brain damage, molestation and mental health issues–all of which should have been heard by the jury. Because the penalty is arbitrary, emotion-based and unpredictable, assessing what would affect a jury and what wouldn't is impossible. Let's just abolish it.
Abolish or enforce. I agree with that sentiment. But if you, jury, and thereby society has decided that the defendant can never be released, then the corollary is that person has no societal value then (both economic and on humane considerations of being kept in a cage for life) the rational choice would be to terminate.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 7:43 pm
Agree with abolish or greatly revamp.
Obviously these cases are of the utmost critical importance and must, by necessity ,take several years.
But it gets absurd in terms of decades spent, and the millions spent.
Zane Floyd committed his murders in 1999, and that's not even close to being the worst of the delays.
For example, Tracy Petrocelli has been on Nevada Death Row for a murder committed in 1981. That's 40 years ago, and there is no real end in sight.
So, by the time it ever gets close to an execution date for Petrocelli, we will have passed the half-century mark. No one with half a brain believes someone on death row for 40 or 50 years will actually ever be executed.
I have no sympathy for these guys, and not arguing that they deserve to have their lives spared. I mention that because whenever anyone on this blog accurately points out that the death penalty system is broken to the point that it should perhaps need to be abolished, there is invariably someone(perhaps a non-lawyer) who indignity responds something like "why are you shedding tears for these murdering scums? What about the victim and their families?"
Well, while we are on that point, what about the families of the victims? Do they benefit by continuously having to re-live the tragedy in gory, painful detail each time there is a fresh news/legal cycle about some pending execution that will in fact never occur?
What a horrible chapter for our bar during the Centofanti saga.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 7:59 pm
Back in my day, Discovery Commissioner Biggar had tentative rulings. I thought they were great. Let’s you focus on your issues. The court had already made a tentative ruling in their notes or head at a minimum, so why not make it public and let attorneys focus their arguments. If the court has decided no need to beat a dead horse.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 8:02 pm
Tom Biggar used tentatives very effectively. Carolyn Ellsworth's tentatives showed precisely how wrong she would routinely be. It does show that the judge read the pleadings and what the judge is concerned about. With an effective judge, it should shorten hearing times by getting to the heart of the issues; with an ineffective judge, you spend more time having to show the judge everything that he or she has gotten wrong in their assumptions.
Guest
Anonymous
June 9, 2021 10:54 pm
-more time having to show the judge everything that he or she has gotten wrong
I think there are way too many instances when the judges don't know the fundamental law or have the facts wrong. Maybe the judge is lazy, maybe he/she/it or whatever just doesn't know. Can't fix lazy. The latter might be mitigated by making judges take a fundamentals of law course in first year subjects, or sit for some kind of judicial commission exam on taking office to show at least minimum competence. Just sayin…
I don't get the Boyd '13 comments. I am pretty sure the comments are a criticism of Boyd '13. However, I don't know or understand how the negative comment became so commonplace. Can someone enlighten me?
Tentative rulings is very much a thing in California, but I've not seen it formalized or widely adopted in Nevada. I've seen some judges announce at the outset of oral argument their initial thoughts, but nothing so formal as written tentative rulings as is widely the case in California.
I grew up in So Cal Courts. Some courts would have tentatives laying out, others you had to ask the clerk on check in. You would be surprised at how many lawyers never asked to see the tentative.
But, yes. I like having a tentative. You can see the logic developed by the court or law clerk and thereby know what to argue.
Courts not providing tentative could signal that the judge has not read the briefs and is going to wing the hearing. A department that routinely does not provid a tentative is a sign that the judge is lazy.
Very few judges can issue a tentative opinion without emboldening one side or the other. That makes it nearly impossible to come to any kind of compromise. I've seen cases in front of judges like Forsberg where she emboldens one party with a tentative or temporary ruling and then doing ANYTHING in the case becomes a major production because she's already conveyed to that party that they win no matter what. On the other hand some judges are really good at telegraphing where they see the case going and what the weaknesses and strengths are on both sides without necessarily indicating to either side that they're winning. Duckworth is really good at that in motion hearings. It enables you to counsel your client and it prevents either side from thinking they're necessarily winning so settlement can sometimes still be achieved. I guess in the balance, I'm not in favor of tentative rulings because so few judges can actually issue them without f-ing up the case and ruining any chance of settlement.
I don't think tentative rulings are need, I think our judges need to decide most motions on the pleadings and only have hearings when they have real questions like they do in Federal Court. Most oral arguments are a huge waste of time. This of course, will never happen because it would require judges to actually read the pleadings and then write detailed orders, which they would never do.
What 10:41 said.
Man, I recall spending tons of time preparing for oral argument, just to have the judge pull out a pre-drafted order and read it into the record. Even when I won I felt like I had wasted a ton of time.
In my role as a short trial judge, I rarely hold hearings on law and motion matters. Unless I have questions (which means one attorney or the other failed to address all necessary issues), I can rule from the motion/opposition/reply. Zoom/BlueJeans makes holding a hearing easier for all concerned, but if a hearing is not needed, I rule on the papers.
Unfortunately, some of us bring such frivolous motions that I can decide them on their face without even reading any opposition. Filing such frivolous motions can result in a compulsory donation to the Law Library under Rule 11!
I've always favored disclosing the bench memo in appellate cases. I worked for the NSC and I know how wrong the memos can be. Since there is so little time alloted for argument, seeing the bench memo would allow counsel to focus the argument.
Can we have a heightened standard for death penalty that shortens the process? Like, if there's dozens of witnesses and video that it was you who murdered people in a grocery store, there's not as much needed on appeal as someone who was convicted on circumstancial evidence?
If you're 100% unquestionably guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond really a shadow of a doubt, maybe we can move it along a little bit quicker.
Can you propose a name for this highest standard? Hunch-Reasonable Suspicion-PC-CCE-Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-[Your proposal here].
Super Duper Convincing Evidence? Beyond doubt? I dunno, just spitballing here.
Obviously this wouldn't fix the problem of the death penalty being disproportionately applied based on on race, but maybe it speeds things up where there is really no question as to guilt.
It's disproportionately deserved bc a higher percent of AA commit violent crimes than non-AA, if the penalties weren't "mitigated" due to raccueial brainwashing there would be even more AA on death row, cue the virtue-signaling woke liberals..
I propose BAD (Beyond ANY Doubt). BTW I forgot to insert POE between PC and CCE. My bad! . . . .
I've thought about the same thing many times. I would be nice instead of mocking the idea by using terms like "Super Duper Convincing Evidence", that lawyers would actually respond in a thoughtful manner about a proposed new standard that could apply in death penalty cases.
"Beyond Any Doubt" sounds like a good standard to use.
11:25/1:13 here, I was being fascetious about "super duper"
I appreciate the other comments and suggestions. I think Beyond Any Doubt is a good starting place too
Many of the reversals in death penalty cases come from the failure of counsel to present mitigating evidence in the penalty phase. So many times, when the case hits federal court years after the conviction (direct appeal and post-conviction and post-conviction appeal), new evidence is turned up of brain damage, molestation and mental health issues–all of which should have been heard by the jury. Because the penalty is arbitrary, emotion-based and unpredictable, assessing what would affect a jury and what wouldn't is impossible. Let's just abolish it.
Abolish or enforce. I agree with that sentiment. But if you, jury, and thereby society has decided that the defendant can never be released, then the corollary is that person has no societal value then (both economic and on humane considerations of being kept in a cage for life) the rational choice would be to terminate.
Agree with abolish or greatly revamp.
Obviously these cases are of the utmost critical importance and must, by necessity ,take several years.
But it gets absurd in terms of decades spent, and the millions spent.
Zane Floyd committed his murders in 1999, and that's not even close to being the worst of the delays.
For example, Tracy Petrocelli has been on Nevada Death Row for a murder committed in 1981. That's 40 years ago, and there is no real end in sight.
So, by the time it ever gets close to an execution date for Petrocelli, we will have passed the half-century mark. No one with half a brain believes someone on death row for 40 or 50 years will actually ever be executed.
I have no sympathy for these guys, and not arguing that they deserve to have their lives spared. I mention that because whenever anyone on this blog accurately points out that the death penalty system is broken to the point that it should perhaps need to be abolished, there is invariably someone(perhaps a non-lawyer) who indignity responds something like "why are you shedding tears for these murdering scums? What about the victim and their families?"
Well, while we are on that point, what about the families of the victims? Do they benefit by continuously having to re-live the tragedy in gory, painful detail each time there is a fresh news/legal cycle about some pending execution that will in fact never occur?
Free Chip Centofanti!
What a horrible chapter for our bar during the Centofanti saga.
Back in my day, Discovery Commissioner Biggar had tentative rulings. I thought they were great. Let’s you focus on your issues. The court had already made a tentative ruling in their notes or head at a minimum, so why not make it public and let attorneys focus their arguments. If the court has decided no need to beat a dead horse.
Tom Biggar used tentatives very effectively. Carolyn Ellsworth's tentatives showed precisely how wrong she would routinely be. It does show that the judge read the pleadings and what the judge is concerned about. With an effective judge, it should shorten hearing times by getting to the heart of the issues; with an ineffective judge, you spend more time having to show the judge everything that he or she has gotten wrong in their assumptions.
-more time having to show the judge everything that he or she has gotten wrong
I think there are way too many instances when the judges don't know the fundamental law or have the facts wrong. Maybe the judge is lazy, maybe he/she/it or whatever just doesn't know. Can't fix lazy. The latter might be mitigated by making judges take a fundamentals of law course in first year subjects, or sit for some kind of judicial commission exam on taking office to show at least minimum competence. Just sayin…
Maybe the brief is unclear. Maybe people should write better like Boyd class of 2013
I don't get the Boyd '13 comments. I am pretty sure the comments are a criticism of Boyd '13. However, I don't know or understand how the negative comment became so commonplace. Can someone enlighten me?
I don't know how the meme started but it's been around for a while, just like the class of Boyd '13