- law dawg
- 23 Comments
- 1807 Views
- NV Energy betting the house on data centers. [NV Current]
- Lawsuit seeks class action, damages brought by Station Casinos cyberattack. [RJ; Fox5Vegas]
- Trump endorses Nevada attorney general candidate in GOP primary race. [News3LV]
- District attorney wants to charge teen accused in Las Vegas horse stabbing as adult. [8NewsNow]
Speaking of AI – The Ninth Circuit comes down hard on its misuse – https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf
I can kinda get accidentally filing with hallucinated citations. I think everyone who doesn’t have an independent cite check is crazy, but you’re busy, you have few resources, the citations look good – I can see why it happens. What surprises me is how often the lawyers just lie about what they did or use unchecked gen AI to draft oppositions to the OSC. Maybe there’s a connection between trying to take the shortcut of using unchecked gen AI and refusing to do what needs to be done once you’re caught.
It is called —
Being Lazy
Just wondering–has anyone ever checked their cases or cites against the actual versions in the books or what is written in the actual opinions typed by the Courts themselves? Who is to say that they are correct? The US Supremes alter wording (or even just punctuation or grammar) all the time. So, who is to know whether what you are citing from Lexis, Westlaw, or even books is actually the law?
Deeper question: Do any of us actually exist?
It’s all a simulation. Welcome to the Matrix.
Check the official reporter for that jurisdiction. Were you absent that day in law school?
We had to check citations against physical books in my law school clinic. Westlaw does occasionally get it wrong (I think it’s especially bad for Nevada Supreme Court decisions). Checking with physical books is also helpful in the rare case where the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion is fractured and only certain sections are for the majority — the books are much clearer which sections are which.
Of course, the only reason we could do this was because it was a clinic with no need to bill the client and virtually unlimited time to work on a case. Since then I’ve worked at firms with elaborate cite checking procedures and none of them involved checking the books.
Everyone is using ai. Judges too.
Las Vegas judge reduces bail for special education teacher accused of raping child: https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-judge-reduces-bail-for-special-education-teacher-accused-of-raping-child-3832963/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=section_row&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=Las%20Vegas%20judge%20reduces%20bail%20for%20special%20education%20teacher%20accused%20of%20raping%20child
Who will stand up for the poor child rapists in these troubled times?
I read the story. I dont say this lightly or often: sounds like Peterson got it right. He is entitled to bail. He still has to post gigantic bail for a school teacher.
With 46 counts of sexual abuse against children with DNA evidence? Any one of those charges carries a potential life sentence. There was no justifiable reason to drop that bail amount that had already been set by another judge.
You are getting downvoted, 6:39 PM, for commending Peterson for following the law. Contrary to what the pitchforks and torches crowd thinks, bail is only intended to ensure the accused, presumed innocent, appear in court. Even child molesters are still entitled to a presumption of innocence and bail.
I like Judge Peterson. Have donated. Have recommended her candidacy to many. Will continue to do so.
That’s not following the law. Bail is discretionary and set at initial arraignment in Justice Court pursuant to a Valdez-Jimenez hearing, or at the grand jury return by the chief judge. When bail is set pursuant to a V-J hearing, a defendant has to show a material change in circumstances to warrant a new bail hearing in District Court absent some issue that rendered the V-J hearing constitutionally invalid, which is exceptionally rare. Peterson repeatedly ignores those legal standards and drops bail whenever she gets a motion to reconsider. There are a number of reasons why she does this, but regardless, she fails over and over to recognize that other judges have the ability to set bail and do so after a careful consideration of the facts of each case.
Except here, bail was not set pursuant to a Valdez Jimenez hearing. It was set ex-parte without notice to the defense at the grand jury return. Judge Peterson was absolutely correct in revisiting it upon motion by the defense.
9:21 is 1000% correct on the law that there was no V/J Hearing. Look I have kids and abhor the notion of them being sexually abused. But bail is not supposed to be punitive. It is supposed to ensure the appearance and presence of the Defendant. It is subject to reconsideration on notice with input from both sides which is exactly what occurred.
Revisiting bail after a grand jury return is expected. But “revisiting” doesn’t have to mean “dropping bail by 75%,” which is what she did here and has a consistent pattern of doing. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I’ve heard the arguments of counsel and I am leaving bail at its current setting,” or “the facts of this case are offensive and egregious, to protect the community and to address the likely flight risk I’m increasing bail.”
Bail was already set and posted, the GJ return is where bail should not have been readdressed ex-parte. The state could have filed a motion with notice to defense counsel that it wanted to increase the bail. There was no new conduct, just the state stacking on more charges.
Cases usually come in with a few things charged up front. Once the assigned prosecutor is able to break the facts down, there is usually substantially more criminal conduct than initially alleged, especially with sex cases.
Even given that the 46 counts seem to be the same victim and it is possible that it has nothing to do with his teaching role, they also stated there is DNA evidence and this SA against minor(s) was ongoing for years. If convicted, at his age, this will be a life sentence. I am not sure that the $1,000,000 is so outrageous. He would only need to come up with $100,000 correct? Now he only needs to come up with $17,500? Is that enough to make sure someone will show up for a potential life in prision?
Bond fee on that amount of bail is likely 20%.
I need to hire an ID associate ASAP. Who do you use to find and vet candidates?