- law dawg
- 28 Comments
- 2413 Views
- Scoffing at state law requiring a study first, NDOC plans for more limits on prison mail. [NV Current]
- Washoe County’s top prosecutor has a challenger for the first time. It’s getting messy. [TNI]
- Las Vegas Sun seeks order requiring Review-Journal to resume printing newspaper. [RJ]
So, the Sun doesn’t have the cash to keep operating, but it does have the cash to pay lawyers. Go figure.
In the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in the Crazy Horse case, it talks about Judge Peterson’s altering of the office court transcript of the trial. “[T]here are better ways to accomplish that objective than fabrication a part of the official court transcript and undermining the public trust in the veracity of court records.” Yikes. But I think Herndon actually should have been harder on Peterson.
Scotti tossed a physical copy of the Constitution at the wall and he got run out on a rail. Peterson just went full-scale anti-Constitution corruption mode. It’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see how that plays out.
The Judicial Discipline Commission cometh.
She’ll probably ignore it and go full Ballou.
NVSC nuking Judge Peterson from orbit in Chasing Horse victim naming opinion this morning.
Wes Duncan is a carpetbagger and Chris Hicks is a nepo baby of a pretty evil dude. They all can be right about how wrong the other guy is.
What’s the problem with Larry Hicks? He was before my time.
I am sorry. How does this not merit a Judicial Discipline reference?
“Disturbingly, the district court directed the written transcript of this
reference to be altered to appear as though the court had referred to S. Doe
by her pseudonym rather than her real first name. To the extent the district
court was concerned about redisclosing S. Doe’s first name in the written
transcript, there are better ways to accomplish that objective than
fabricating a part of the official court transcript and undermining the public
trust in the veracity of court records. For instance, the court could have
simply sealed the full transcript and redacted the publicly filed version”
Jeeesus. How many times has she altered the record before? Or after? That’s like a DUI, there’s no way you got caught the first time you did it.
Might also warrant a referral to the Nevada Certified Court Reporters Board if a certified court reporter was involved, though my guess is not given NRS 3.380 is a thing.
Sorry although I am not a fan of Judge Jessica Petersen, I think she can’t be criticized for protecting the rights of the minor victim and privacy. The Nevada S. Ct. has got it wrong here.
Sure there were other ways to do it like sealing the record but can’t fault Judge Petersen for what she did here. She tried and made a decision for which she is criticized. Monday morning quarter back.
Pick your metaphor: Once the bell is rung, it can’t be unrung. Or the cat is out of the bag.
The problem is Judge Peterson didn’t stop to think how she could wipe away what was already public information or whether the State or the victim ever properly invoked privacy protections, if any were available, from the start.
As far as the court process is concerned, the potential errors and stopping points along the way where this could’ve been less disruptively resolved as I see it were, in timeline order, the victim not properly invoking a right to privacy in the court records from the outset, testifying before the grand jury under her true name and not a pseudonym, the DA’s Office doing nothing to try to redact the grand jury testimony at the time it was filed in district court after a renewed indictment was returned (I’m not saying it was the DA’s Office’s obligation to do anything in that regard if privacy rights were never properly invoked in the first place), attempting to seal or redact the grand jury transcript of the victim’s true name somewhere else along the way, and by ensuring pseudonymity was enforced a trial, rather than letting everyone use the true name in open court from opening statements and during the victim’s testimony.
The absolute worst place and way to try to unring the bell was in open court, after the victim’s name was already public because the grand jury transcript had been public when the LVRJ reporter got ahold of them, and after the victim’s true name was stated several times publicly in open court.
The after-the-fact measures at containment were rife with error. But then to alter the trial transcript to try to silence the bell, that went way overboard. The “decorum” orders, threats at contempt, ejections from open court, and the prior restraints were already bad enough.
So I can’t credit Judge Peterson from trying to unring the bell. And by the way, the victim is no longer a minor; she was a minor when the alleged offenses occurred.
Yes, because American jurisprudence is founded on the Machiavellian principle of “The Ends Justify The Means.” Believe it or not, there have been more than a few sex assault cases taken to trial with victims who wanted to remain anonymous. We can find evidence of those trials in something lawyers like to refer to as “case law.” Those cases set forth easy to follow, lawful means of keeping victim names private. A modicum of legal research on Judge Peterson’s part would have saved her all this embarassment, but that’s not how she operates. She simply doesn’t care about following the law or ethical rules when she has an axe to grind.
Danielle Tarmu For Judge is running her campaign for Department 28 on TikTok under that name. Thoughts?
“When the sun goes down, on my side of town, that lonesome feelin’, comes to my doooorrr…”
She’s a candidate using a social media tool. What other name would you expect her to use?
Hey LACSN. I took a case from you last year only to find out today that the clients that I am volunteering my time (and my money) to help just paid $750,000 for their home. My home didnt cost $750,000 and yet you want me to give these people my time for free? Makes me think twice about volunteering for pro bono ever again.
No one wants you to give your precious time to someone who is not qualified. If this is true, contact LACSN and inform them of the situation.
@2:52 Good thoughts. But as someone who has accepted and filed legal aid cases in the district court, my impression is that increasing the case count (think future funding) has a greater priority than critical
screening.
LACSN just shovels it. They don’t smell it.
LACSN is something else. I have sent clients there who really need help and can’t get it.
Looking for a referral for an employment law attorney for a plaintiff that wants to sue CCSD. Plaintiff is a teacher. Thank you!
Plaintiff-side employment law referrals. Feels impossible to find anyone good/who responds/who doesn’t charge a huge consultation fee. Great topic. I’m curious too.
“charge a huge consultation fee”
..Yes, because these cases are difficult to win and cases with real merit are few and far between. That means that the attorney has to spend a good deal of time sorting thru the proposed client’s BS to determine if it is worth perusing.
4:15 is right. These cases are taken on a contingency fee. Gotta take winners, not losers. It can be very tricky to give meaningful advice without having the key legally significant records up front. The consultation fee is designed to weed out weak cases and to make sure the PC gets their stuff together before talking with a lawyer.
Some pitfalls to be aware of: the teacher’s employment relationship is almost certainly covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and many employment-based claims could be subject to the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedure.
If the teacher hasn’t already, the teacher should immediately confer with his or her union about a grievance–especially if it’s a termination case. Often grievances have very short time frames to be asserted, and if potential employment law-esque claims are within the scope of the CBA’s mandatory and exclusive arbitration provisions, resort to the grievance and arbitration procedure will be required. If a grievance isn’t timely asserted or a grievance isn’t pursued when required, the ability to seek relief in other forums could be foreclosed.
Lots of pitfalls for the uninitiated.
Nice when someone who actually knows what they’re talking about joins the discussion.
Danielle Barraza