- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 61 Views
Happy first day of spring, everyone!
It seems that the Commission on Judicial Selection’s nominees seemed to have struck some nerves. While having diverse and qualified candidates is an important consideration, today we want to focus on the qualified part of things. Some of you have strong feelings about judges from one practice area taking a case load in another. In this instance, the concern is that the nominees do not have the criminal experience to handle a criminal docket. What is it about the idea of a civil litigator handling a criminal docket that irks you so? Can’t a good civil lawyer be a good criminal judge? Is this much different than when non-family law practitioners run for family court? How do you propose this be resolved? Does anyone know why we have judges who have both civil and criminal dockets? Doesn’t it make more sense to have them focus on one? Does it bother you that the chief judge could change the assigned dockets at any time? Is your bracket already busted?
Long-time criminal defense attorney here. Many of the judges in both state and federal court who were strong civil litigators turn out to be much better judges in criminal cases than do long-time prosecutors. They often start out being appalled at all the discovery violations by the prosecutors and can't believe we have to try cases in the dark. Prosecutors, on the other hand, are so accustomed to sloppy practice that they won't do anything about Brady violations or other common prosecutorial tactics.
Excellent observation.
Translation: inexperienced judges benefit the criminal defense bar.
8:13 must be one of those sloppy prosecutors. What he said was that new judges with a civil litigation background are more likely to enforce Brady and those with a criminal prosecution background are more likely not to. Both sets are inexperienced, but only one set craps the bed.
8:43: making no sense since 8:43
I do not believe Joe Hardy would be a good choice for a judge who presides over criminal cases when he posts on attorney Stephen Stubbs' Facebook page about Stubbs' upcoming criminal obstruction trial and refers to it as "party time." Joe Hardy is not judge material and this is not appropriate behavior for a judge wannabe. If Joe Hardy makes a mockery of our criminal justice system then he does not belong on the bench.
Thanks Stubbs
The post has made the rounds……….obviously it was no Joe Hardy's smartest move.
It's easy to criticize after the fact but how many of you wrote letters or showed up at the commission hearings on these people or the court of appeals people or any of the other recent appointment hearings? The abdication of this process to a commission that's not producing top results is as much on us as members of the bar as them. But it does illustrate that elections of judges has strengths. In the elected system you do get debates about qualifications both before and after the judge is on the bench when they have to stand to run again. Appointed with life tenure you're stuck. And the ratings while slanted and driven by organized segments of the bar some times at least provide information on whether to keep or scrap a judge, which is at least some input.
Lawyers who actually practice in District Court make up but a small fraction of the voting public. It is impossible to overstate the dimwittedness of the general Las Vegas electorate. Just look at our elected public officeholders (I won't call them 'servants') and you'll be convinced. For God's sake, they elected Elizabeth Halverson.
The RJ's efforts in judicial elections (lawyer surveys, uninformed editorial endorsements) actually make matters worse.
It's the fundraising that is so sleazy. "Buy a Judge" is very real in Las Vegas. Couldn't they cap all funds raised to under 60k? Boo-hoo, that eliminates TV commercials.
Chapman will get 15, Johnson 16. Sandoval comes from the federal system and knows both of them. They're both safe picks for him. I had never heard of Chapman; but according to Martindale she's a reasonably solid practitioner in the world of employment law.
The guy I feel a little sympathy for is John Watkins. The dude is nearing legend status among LV criminal attorneys and wants to give back. How can anyone say he would not be an exceptional judge and at the top of the candidate list (except maybe some snot-nosed young DA who regularly gets out-lawyered by Watkins)?
It's rare that a great Las Vegas attorney actually wants to be a judge. The last might have been Earl. Mostly what we get are lawyers whose choice to be a judge arises from difficulty maintaining an actual law practice (eg. Miley, Walsh) or a lifetime government lawyer who sees the bench as a natural progression of his/her path to a publicly-funded retirement. That's why its a shame when a guy like Watkins gets passed over.
This isn't John Watkins
I agree. A shame. A crying shame.
I agree. John Watkins would make an excellent judge.
What they said
Watkins would make a great CRIMINAL judge, no doubt. But does he know a single solitary thing about civil practice? Just saying…
If you want to discount the judicial bids of civil attorneys for having no criminal experience, I think it's only fair that it cuts the other way (i.e., criminal attorneys with no civil experience).
Hence, I don't see Watkins as any more qualified than Joe Hardy, except, of course, as to number of years of practice. I don't dispute that Watkins wins that point.
A fair question @9:57, and a common misconception about John. While he is mostly a criminal defense attorney THESE DAYS, he has a civil track record going back to 1984. It is possible John was doing civil cases while your parents were in high school. Or it could be you are fairly new to town and don't know that he had/has a mixed practice area business. Also, a hint for those who work in bigger civil firms, solo attorneys may focus on one area more than others but, to pay the bills, they tend to do a bit of everything. John has practiced in both pools long enough to know how and more importantly he has the temperament to make a great judge.
2:29, well put.
John Watkins should be judge and the State would be lucky to have him. Scotti bought that seat out from under Watkins and the panel made a mockery of the appointment system.
Agree with you.
I agree with all these positive remarks about John Watkins. He is most deserving. But we can compliment him on his own merits without denigrating others. Just because John would make a fine judge, and in fact a finer judge than some who were elected instead of him, or may be appointed instead of him, does not mean that in this instance the system is a total farce or mockery. There have been examples in the past wherein the person who was appointed or elected was so inferior to the others that it would lend credence to the argument that the system is a farce or a mockery. But it doesn't apply here. Even if John would make a better judge, and may be more deserving, than Scotti or Hardy, does not mean they are undeserving. Scotti's a good, knowledgeable judge, and I believe Hardy will be as well if he gets appointed. And if Scotti "bought the seat out from under Watkins" that is the hard, and admittedly sad, reality of judicial elections. Those with the most resources often prevail, even if other candidates are more capable and qualified.
Why is it that Walsh and Miley are so frequently bashed here? At least they're both pleasant.
It's a really sad statement from the committee that Watkins wasn't recommended for appointment. There are few if any criminal defense attorneys more qualified or better suited for the bench. The committee is basically sending the message that they don't want a private criminal defense attorney as a district court judge. If not John Watkins, then who? (Rhetorical)
According to SOS:
$388,677.75 – Scotti's Contributions
$144,922.01 – Watkins' Contributions
How does the criminal defense community get one of their good guys on the bench?
Scotti sucks. He was a board of governor. If you are affiliated with the bar of governors you lose my vote, I won't even listen to you. Watkins should have won. I wish he continues to run. Sandoval, like most Republicans, doesn't like criminal defense attorneys.
board
6:51 have you been before Scotti yet? Probably not. He has been fantastic. Fair, follows the rules, which is what you want in a Judge. I witnessed him strike an answer for destruction of evidence. It was the right decision, but most Judges would be to scared to do that.
Watkins and Bulla both were initially chosen by the panel for Dept 20 and 15. They were eliminated after the first round of voting. After four and five rounds the panel discussed candidates and whittled their choices down to the three in each Dept.
I have been in front of him, and Scotti still sucks!
I think David Rivers was a good candidate too.
Yep.
There's a real difference between an experienced criminal defense attorney and an experienced prosecutor, in my opinion. I have done both civil and criminal work. If you are doing substantive criminal cases as a defense attorney (not ticket busters or all misdemeanors), you need to apply the kind of analytical thinking that translates for civil work. I find criminal defense work more similar to civil defense work (as opposed to most plaintiff's work) Often the defendant in both genres is the movant, thus the creator of legal issues. Watkins has done incredible work in his cases in analysis of legal issues.
I don't understand why they forced appellate court applicants to choose one dept only to apply for, and that's the way it works for elections too, yet here they allowed dual dept applications. And Chris Davis applied to both 9th and 8th judicial districts. Good strategy, why not.