- Quickdraw McLaw
- 27 Comments
- 84 Views
- Attorney Orrin J. H. Johnson opines on the “most significant Nevada Supreme Court case of the 21st century” that was handed down last week. [TNI]
- Here’s a Q&A with former gaming regulator A.G. Burnett. [Vegas Inc.]
- Purdue Pharma files for bankruptcy setting in motion lots of future legal work. [AP]
I get the reference but FYI Benjamin Orr sang Drive, not Ocasek…RIP Benjamin Orr.
Did you forget that Ocasek wrote the song?
What's next? Can I get a jury trial for my speeding ticket?
A speeding ticket doesn't potentially strip you of a liberty interest that has been deemed fundamental, so no.
Agree with 11:31…I am very liberal, but we have a second amendment so we have to protect it. If someone can potentially lose firearm rights, they deserve a trial by jury.
But that's the fun part of the decision right? You always were stripped of the right if convicted. But since it was the feds doing it and not state authorities that loss was too unimportant to trigger the right to a jury trial.
Anyone admitted in 2007 would likely think that Anderson was the most important case of the 21st Century because he was not around for Guinn v. Legislature.
Heads rolled over Guinn. Bye bye Nancy Becker and a few others.
Nancy Becker was tossed for being too liberal in favor of Nancy Saitta who was more liberal in many ways and half the justice.
10:54 – A little more trivia – did you see the girl in the Drive video. I was reading that's where he met his wife Paula (sp) Porzikova. I also remember she was in that really bad movie with Tom Selleck haha
"a political climate where more and more politicians are open and brazen about their desire to control and regulate every aspect of people’s daily lives." Man, Orrin occasionally has decent points, but he really loses credibility when he engages in Fox Newsisms and blatantly strawmans democrats. Clean it up Orrin. You're better than that.
12:44 here again. That said, I think it was a good article. He just can't help himself though, even on an issue that in my opinion is not all that partisan.
I've had a couple of cases against Lewis Brisbois now where I've seen some (ethically) questionable conduct. This isn't garden-level gamesmanship, but closer to family law-level. I wish I could go into detail but there's no way to do that without exposing myself (and no one wants to see that).
I wonder if it's just me, or if you guys see the same? And if so, is it an issue with firm culture, or what?
It is not just you. Corey E. Is trustworthy though.
Dealing with the same shit with a Boyd 2012 and Boyd 1980. Joking about the 1980, but some of the attorneys in this town are dbags. Sorry you're going through that.
Anyone dealt with Resnick & Louis?
Hey Asshat! Question my ethics in Family Court? No wonder your client, Dad, left the court sniffling last week. That's what I do when you question my ethics.
Resnick and Louis is dirty too. Randall Tindall is there, which explains why
I like Tindall. One of the few attorneys worth a damn
What's wrong with Randy?
He spoke out about Dave Thomas and his judges.
I will take Tindall over puff the magic dragon attorney.
Puff the magic attorney lived in Northtown…
I have to give the NSC credit for its decision in Anderson v. Eighth Judicial District Court (135 Nev., Adv. Op. 42 (2019). I never quite understood the denial of the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, even misdemeanors (what are now called minor offenses) in the face of Art. 1 Sec. 3 of the Nevada Constitution. It provides: "The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever; but a Jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law; and in civil cases, if three fourths of the Jurors agree upon a verdict it shall stand and have the same force and effect as a verdict by the whole Jury, Provided, the Legislature by a law passed by a two thirds vote of all the members elected to each branch thereof may require a unanimous verdict notwithstanding this Provision." I do not see anything within that provision that provides an exemption for criminal cases similar to the provision for civil cases. Similarly, when the loss of a liberty interest is at state (incarceration, regardless of length of time) I would not consider it a civil case.
This decision is of the nature of Gideon v. Wainwright in terms of enforcing constitutionally protected rights. It will be interesting to see if it is the first step in a series of decisions down this path or rather if its import becomes cut-off at the knee through a series of limiting distinctions.
That's a nice theory, that the right to a jury trial is absolute, but it only secured the right that existed at the time of the Nevada Constitution's adoption. State v. McClear, 11 Nev. 39 (1876). The common law understanding is the jury trial right never extended to petty offenses. State ex rel. Fletcher v. Ruhe, 24 Nev. 241, 52 P. 274 (1898). The Nevada Supreme Court has been clear that the right protected by Art. 1, Sec. 3 of the Nevada Constitution is coextensive with the right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Blanton v. N. Las Vegas Mun. Ct., 103 Nev. 623, 748 P.2d 494 (1987).
Doesn't mean that those decisions were correctly decided. It seems the words of the Constitution as pretty clear and unambiguous. If the right, as defined by the Constitution (the supreme law) is not what the people/government want or think it should be, there is a remedy to fix the problem… amend the Constitution to change it to say what you think it should say, not morphing it into meaning something else by judicial and/or legislative fiat.
Just one observer's opinion.
The Anderson decision also raises additional questions and could be but the first step down the proverbial slippery slope. It seems that the NSC focused on the 2nd Amendment implications of the state proceedings against the Defendant, and indirect implications rather than direct ones at that, in reaching its ultimate conclusions.
That of course raises the immediate question of whether a respondent to a petition for a Domestic Violence Order of Protection pursuant to NRS 33.017 et. seq. should be entitled to a jury trial on the petition as well as appointment of counsel. An Order of Protection (TPO) issued to this section carries the same 2nd Amendment implications as the NSC expressed concerns about with the criminal conviction of Battery, Domestic Violence. (see 18 U.S.C. 922(G)(8)). While it may not yet expose the individual to a state level felony charge for the violation of 18 U.S.C. 922, it does create a potential federal criminal exposure along with the 2nd Amendment issues.