The Nevada Supreme Court has published a handy dandy guide to the legislation emerging from the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session. The summary offers judges, attorneys, and other interested parties with information on the bills passed during the most recent session, highlighting those of importance to the justice community.
Download your copy here.
I'm not sure a study was needed to determine this, but perhaps this makes it official.
The Supreme Court Indigent Defense Commission has received the study it requested of the indigent defense systems in Clark and Washoe Counties. The Court had previously issued performance standards for public defenders, and commissioned the study to determine whether caseload standards were necessary to insure compliance with performance standards. However, that task as assigned could not be performed, because the performance standards were not implement until April 2009, while the study was performed in December 2008. Instead, the study compared caseload standards employed by other jurisdictions to determine what standards could allow the performance standards to be met.
Nevertheless, the study, performed by the Spangenberg Group and the Center for Justice, Law and Society at George Mason University, determined that the public defender offices are far too inadequately funded to meet the standards already in place. The offices rely on the county for nearly all of their funding, and have too few lawyers, too little support staff, and too few resources to be able to achieve at the performance standards expected by the recent change. One chart shows that attorney staffing of the Clark County Public Defenders office should be increased by at least 32%, and as much as 82%, in order to achieve caseload standards comparable to other jurisdictions in the western U.S.
Download the study here.
The Supreme Court wants to crack down on lawyers who don’t keep up with their CLE obligations. In an order filed July 7, the Supreme Court ordered the Board of Continuing Legal Education to conduct a comprehensive review of Board and Supreme Court rules about CLE and issue a report with recommendations within 90 days. The Court will schedule public hearings in Carson City and Las Vegas within 30 days of filing the report. The Supreme Court will then accept, reject or amend the Board’s recommendations.
Noting a pattern of noncompliance, and a lack of penalties for attorneys who repeatedly fail to comply, the Court has asked the Board of Continuing Legal Education update its rules to address the “delinquent and habitually delinquent attorneys.” The Court wants increases in the fines for noncompliance increased, and automatic suspension of licenses lawyers who do not fulfill their CLE obligations after receiving a single notice of delinquency.
Justice Hardesty gave the State of the Judiciary address to a joint session of the Nevada Legislature last week. Among the information presented.
-- specialty courts include drug, mental health, business, DUI, Women in Need and the Habitual Offender Prevention and Education (HOPE) Court
-- family law cases now comprise more than half of all civil cases
--construction defect and medical malpractice cases continue to impose considerable challenges in terms of time to resolve; the endoscopy cases, currently numbering over 445, are expected to create a case management crisis
--the traffic amnesty program at Las Vegas Township Justice Court brought in $5.4 million, with another $5.8 million promised through payment plans.
-- the Nevada Supreme Court reverted almost $2 million to the General Fund for fiscal year 2008, r
The CJ ended by asking the legislature to increase filing fees on civil cases to fund additional judges or provide for other judicial needs, to continue funding of the Senior Judge Program, and to approve a Constitutional amendment to create an Intermediate Appellate Court in Nevada. The latter was approved in the 2007 legislature, and if approved again this year, will go to the voters next year.
Download a copy of the speech from the Supreme Court website HERE or listen to the audio file HERE.
Governor Jim Gibbons today appointed William Gonzalez and Charles Hoskin to judgeships on the Eighth Judicial District Court Family Division in Clark County.
Mr. Hoskin will serve as Clark County Family Court Judge in Department E and Mr. Gonzalez will serve as Clark County Family Court Judge in Department F.
Yesterday, the Nevada State Senate voted unanimously to approve SJR9, which would amend the Nevada Constitution to allow for the establishment of an intermediate appellate court for Nevada. If approved by the Assembly, the proposed amendment would go to the voters in 2010.
Kudos to the Senate for approving the plan. Despite the valiant efforts of the Supreme Court to keep abreast of the increased filings, they need help.
Beginning March 2, the Nevada Supreme Court plans to webcast oral arguments live.
Go to the the court’s website www.nvsupremecourt.us for the webcast.
Previously the Court has conducted live webcasts only for cases deemed to be of particular public interest. However, the court has been posting audio files of oral arguments since September, 2007.
The Nevada Commission of Judicial Selection announced the short lists for the vacancies in Departments E and F of the Eight Judicial District Family Court yesterday.
The three nominees for Department E are:
• Gregory G. Gordon, 38, Henderson, attorney in private practice
• Charles J. Hoskin, 45, Las Vegas, attorney in private practice
• Vincent Ochoa, 56, Las Vegas, attorney in private practice
The three nominees for Department F are:
• William B. Gonzalez, 47, Las Vegas, Clark County Deputy Public Defender
• Keith M. Lyons, Jr., 47, Las Vegas, attorney in private practice
• Vincent Ochoa, 56, Las Vegas, attorney in private practice
The governor has the final choice. The terms for both vacancies expire in January 2010.
Obviously, efiling is coming to the Nevada Supreme Court, because they are offering training in use of the system. Note the following:
The Nevada Supreme Court will be offering training on the usage of the eFlex Filer Interface system (electronic filing system). The training is available to all attorneys and support staff. The goal of the training is to provide sufficient information to enable the filer to comfortably utilize the system to submit filings. Each two hour session will help the filer request their production user account, give a quick overview of the system, review the most frequently asked questions and provide hands-on exercises on how to complete various types of filings.
Training will be conducted at the following locations.
|
Location |
Date |
Time |
|
Regional Justice Center 200 Lewis Ave Las Vegas, NV Training Room 1331 |
February 10, 2009 |
First session from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm; Second session from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm |
|
2nd Judicial District Courthouse 75 Court Street Reno, NV Training Room 201 on the 2nd floor |
February 18, 2009 |
10:00 am to 12:00 pm |
|
IFS Training Facility 727 Fairview Drive, Suite A – Training Room B Carson City, NV |
February 19, 2009 |
2:00 pm to 4:00 pm |
There is no registration fee for this course. If you are interested in registering for training, please contact Christina Hines at 775-684-1739 or via email chines@nvcourts.nv.gov.
Perhaps someone can point me to a notice stating when the Nevada Supreme Court efiling begin !
Hat tip to CCBA’s Court News
Dare I hope that this post, reporting on the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline’s decision regarding the complaints against Judge Elizabeth Halverson, will be the last I need make referring to this sad chapter in Nevada judicial history?
The decision in In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson was released yesterday. It consists of 28 pages, leading to the removal of Halverson from office, and denying her the ability to seek judicial office again.
The Commission found that the following charges were proven by clear and convincing evidence: sleeping during court proceedings/failure to take steps to avoid repeat of occurrence; improper contact with empaneled juries in two criminal cases, with the first instance the result of inexperience, but the second instance willful; several counts of improper treatment of court employees; improperly allowing unauthorized individuals (her bodyguards) access to the RJC; lying about the conduct of other judges; three counts of impeding the administrative functions of the Chief Judge. The Commission attributed most of the conduct to poor judgment on the part of Halverson, coupled with a paranoid belief that the chief judge was out to get her.
Read the decision here.
My personal opinion, with no special information other than what I’ve read and observed, is that Halverson’s physical ailments probably require her to take medications that affect her judgment. I've known cases where medications for severe arthritis, for example, turn otherwise rational people into obnoxious bullies. This does not mean her conduct should be excused or condoned; it just means that maybe without the medications, her judgment would not be so poor. Her removal from the bench seems warranted, but viewing her with some compassion also seems warranted. Or, at any rate, I’d like to think so.
And I hope I need never say more on the topic.
Or, at least, have the information available if asked.
The Nevada Supreme Court changed Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4, to require the biographical data sheet include information about disciplinary history and malpractice insurance. The new rule takes effect Nov. 21, 2008.
See the new Rule here
Or, at least, have the information available if asked.
The Nevada Supreme Court changed Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4, to require the biographical data sheet include information about disciplinary history and malpractice insurance. The new rule takes effect Nov. 21, 2008.
See the new Rule here
At its October meeting, the Nevada Judicial Conduct Code Commission voted to adopt ABA Model Code Canons 2 and 3 and Rules 2.3 through 2.16 and Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, and the related Commentary, with few modifications.
Canon 2 and Rules 2.1 to 2.2
Rules 2.3 to 2.9
Rules 2.10 to 2.16
Canon 3 and Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 & 3.5
The Commission will consider rules Rules 3.6 through 3.15, Canon 4, and Rules 4.1 through 4.4 at its November meeting. Comment is invited.
See the NSC’s press release: Nevada Judicial Code Commission Issues Proposed Amendments
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline has removed Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio from his position as a Clark County Family Court judge. Del Vecchio is barred from seeking judicial office in the future.
Read the RJ article here: FAMILY COURT: Judge's removal ordered .
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline has removed Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio from his position as a Clark County Family Court judge. Del Vecchio is barred from seeking judicial office in the future.
Read the RJ article here: FAMILY COURT: Judge's removal ordered .
The unpublished decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court are now available online at the Nevada Supreme Court Website.
To access the opinions, you need to click on Court information, then Documents, and then narrow the 'Document Type" to "Unpublished Orders." That's not exactly intuitive, but a vast improvement over having no web access at all.
Updated
Channel 8 also has a report: Judge Halverson's Husband Jailed on Attempted Murder Charges. According to the report, Edward Halverson is scheduled to appear this morning on charges of attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon and battery with substantial bodily harm.
Las Vegas News 3 is reporting that suspended Judge Elizabeth Halverson is in critical condition after her husband allegedly attacked her. Read the report here.
Yesterday’s oral argument before the Nevada Supreme Court, en banc, in Scarbo V. District Court , Case No. 51152, attracted the attention of the press, as shown by the R-J ‘s article Supreme Court: Judge's methods reviewed.
The issue presented is whether it is proper for a District Court judge making a competency determination to withhold from counsel the reports relied upon in making the determination. Apparently, both defense and prosecution are provided only one page summaries of the court-appointed doctor’s conclusions.
The article notes that the justices expressed disbelief over contentions that Judge Jackie Glass refused to allow the defense counsel to submit reports from doctors to refute the findings of the court-appointed doctors. The state defended the practice, arguing that relying solely on the court appointed doctors assured neutrality.
The context of the challenge is the two-day-per week "competency court" presided over by Judge Glass. Apparently, the process of determining the competency of a defendant to participate in the criminal justice process has been streamlined.
I find this practice of refusing any input from anyone other than the court-appointed doctors interesting, to say the least. Has anyone tracked the outcomes to determine whether the average outcomes has changed since the change in procedure?
OK – so some charges were dropped, and the hearing continues today on the remainder. If there is no time for closing arguments today, then the final arguments will be briefed.
That could take awhile. And so it goes.
At some point, this story just got old to me. And pointless. The contest ancillary arguments, the media sideshow, and the mean-spirited jokes transformed what could have been a serious issue involving judicial competence into a tabloid event. Frankly, I lost interest.
The judicial disciplinary process has taken so long that it has very nearly been mooted by the election process. Since Halverson was not among the top two finishers in the primary, her term of service does have a clear end, regardless of the outcome here. The few months remaining in Halverson’s term are all that is at stake now.
What has been lost in this story is the impact on litigants with cases in Dept. 23. Those cases have been handled by senior judges. That service is important and I am not knocking the judges who have stepped in to help during this difficult time. But strategy in a case often involves taking the temperment/attitude/viewpoint of the judge assigned in the case into consideration. That ability has been hampered in Dept. 23 while this matter has lingered.
Fortunately, thanks to the election, there IS an end in sight. This is the first time I’ve been grateful for the judicial election process.
For those who care, the charges that were dropped were creation of a hostile work environment, improperly contacting a Family Court hearing master and failing to explain written order procedures to her clerks.
See the RJ article: Some Halverson charges dismissed
The primaries are over, and the candidates in the contested judicial races are:
Nevada Supreme Court – Seat B:
Kris Pickering
Deborah Schumacher
8th Judicial District
Dept 10:
William D. Kephart
Jessie Walsh
Dept 14:
Chris Davis
Donald M. Mosley
Dept 23:
Jason Landess
Stefany Miley
Dept. 25:
Kathleen E. Delaney
Susan Scann
Family Court
Dept: J
Lisa M. Kent
Kenneth E. Pollock
Dept. K
Cynthia N. Guliani
Vincent Ochoa
Dept. N
Mathew Harter
Gayle Beck Nathan
Dept. O
Ron Israel
Frank P. Sullivan
Dept. Q
Bryce C. Duckworth
Carl Piazza
Dept. R
Bill Henderson
Chuck Hoskin
Henderson JP - Dept. 3
Sandy Alfred-DiGiacomo
David Gibson Sr.
LV JP- Dept. 12
Steve Smith
Diana L. Sullivan
NLV JP - Dept. 3
Marsha Kimble-Simms
Chris Lee
Ralston hosted the candidates for Nevada Supeme Court on Face to Face yesterday. All four were invited, but Chairez could not appear, having been subpoenaed to the Halverson proceedings.
I'll update with a link to the webcast when available.
The Nevada Supreme Court has scheduled a public hearing for Monday, October 6, 2008, at 3 p.m. on proposed amendments to the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See the Proposed changes here. There's been an extensive rewrite, although many changes are simply clarifications or simplifications in wording.
To submit written comments regarding the proposed amendments, submit an original and 8 copies of your comments to
Tracie K. Lindeman,
Clerk of the Supreme Court,
201 S. Carson St.,
Carson City, NV, 89701.
All submissions and notification of live participation in the hearing must be received by the Clerk by 5 p.m. on October 1. The hearing will be held in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the 17th Floor of the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas and will be videoconferenced to the Courtroom of the Supreme Court in Carson City.
Hey, somebody had to do it! Fortunately, the somebody is not me.
Harmful Error is taking on the task of providing a seat-by-seat guide to the contested judicial elections.
Today’s race report is for Clark County District Court, Department 10.
First up was a look at the primary race for the Nevada Supreme Court Seat B
As you might expect, Harmful Error, a blog focused on criminal law, reports on the candidates' attitude toward criminal justice, to the extent possible, such as mentioning endorsements by police associations, work on indigent representation projects, or the sort of "tough on crime" platituudes often associated with politicians.
But how, I wonder, might one go about determining a candidate's attitudes toward civil litigation? (Other than looking at who donated to the campaigns, of couse).
Meanwhile, our own Nevada Supreme Court continues efforts to increase public access to high profile matters by making arguments concerning the election issues available to the public by webcast. See the Court’s press release: Nevada Supreme Court Ballot Hearing, Arguments to be Webcast for the First Time. The live broadcast will also be shown on Las Vegas One, channel 19 in Las Vegas.
Here’s the schedule:
WHAT: Nevada Supreme Court public arguments and hearing on ballot issues
WHEN: Friday, June 13, 2008.
10:00 – Independent American Party v. Ross Miller
10:30 – Halverson v. Ross Miller
11:00 – State of Nevada, Masto v. Michael Montero
1:30 – Term limits, ballot issues case management hearing
WHERE: Nevada Supreme Court, 17th Floor Regional Justice Center, 200 Lewis Ave., Las Vegas
VIEWING: Live Internet broadcast via Supreme Court website:.
Las Vegas One television, Channel 19
More cases have been included in those unprecedented logistical hearings scheduled for June 13. See post discussing hearing here.
The recently filed petitions for writ, Child v. Lomax and Sisolak v. Lomax, challenged the candidacies of Barbara Buckley and Bruce Woodbury, respectively, are now also on the Court’s docket.
And, the legislature has moved to intervene in Miller v. Burk, the term limits challenge filed by the AG.
All of the briefing for these and other high profile cases are posted on the Supreme Court's website.
The Nevada Supreme Court has amended Supreme Court Rule 10, relating to senior judges. See the amended rule here. For the most part, the amendments appear to be clarifications of existing language. One change is that senior judges may not be employed as arbitrators or mediators with companies affiliated with private law firms. The amended rule takes effect June 26, 2008.
Election season always brings a number of interesting and fast-tracked cases before the our state's high court. This year is no exeption.
Just take a look as what is scheduled for June 13. That day wiil be particularly busy for the Nevada Supreme court, with several high profile hearings scheduled at the Supreme Court Courtroom in Las Vegas, on the 17th floor of the Regional Justice center.
The morning will be devoted to oral arguments before the full court.
At 10 a.m., the court will hear argument in the case of the Independent American party of Clark County vs. Secretary of State Ross Miller, involving term of office issue. See briefs here.
At 10:30 a.m., the Court will hear Judge Halverson’s challenge to Legislature’s right to create judgeships with shorter terms, which was done to place all judges on the same election and pay raise cycle. See briefs here. (By the way, I’m happy to see that the AG’s response did offer rebuttal to the merits of Halverson’s constitutional challenge, unlike that of the registrar’s.)
At 11 am the Court will hear the challenge to the candidacy of Michael Montero for a seat on the Sixth Judicial District Court bench. Montero resides outside the district, and the issue is whether, candidates need not be residents of their district to file for office. See briefs here.
Then, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hold an unprecedented case management hearing to determine certain other ballot issues, including the last minute challenges to term limits and tax initiatives. The cases in which the hearing was ordered include LV Convention v. Miller/County of Clark v. School Funding Solutions; Nevadans for Nevada v. Martin ; We the People Nevada v. Miller (51735). Click on the links for each case for briefing.
A statement from the Chief Justice Mark Gibbons explains:
The Court will determine how best to address the cases so they can be resolved as quickly as possible. The Court must be responsive to the public’s needs, but must also provide opportunities for all parties to file necessary briefs and for our court staff to conduct the necessary research.
Some cases will have common issues, but others are unique. The Supreme Court is being asked to compress its procedures into very short time frames to accommodate the election cycle and the needs of counties to have absentee ballots printed and mailed in a timely fashion.”
At this point, we don’t know which cases must be decided before the Primary Election and which do not need to be addressed until the General Election. We do not know if the Court can appropriately address all matters in the brief time available, but I can guarantee the Justices will work as hard as they can to meet the needs of the litigants and the public. It is vital, however, that the litigants are afforded due process and that the Court’s decisions ultimately are correct.
The Chief Justice promises, “While we will give these cases priority, we will not take shortcuts and issue opinions that are not well reasoned and supported by the law and the Constitution.”
I have to give credit to our court. Despite the volume of cases they already handle, they make the time to fit these time sensitive matters in. The compesses schedules place a burden on the attorneys who have to brief the issues, but also on the justices who must decide the matters
Electing judges offers such potential for scandalous stories.
For example, Channel 8 reports that one of the attorneys under investigation by the FBI for allegedly conspiring to bilk insurance companies has claim, on tape, to have several Nevada judges in his pocket.
The attorney, who has not yet been charged with a crime, was being taped without his knowledge. Ironically, he was apparently complaining that his colleague was mouthing off about the influence they wielded in return for their judicial campaign contributions. The attorney reportedly said his friend was
telling everybody he, he was telling people that he had the judges in his pocket. I've heard him say it -- I would deny I've heard him say it -- but I've heard him say, ‘Yeah, I've got five or six judges that will do anything I want.' I want to tell you something, I know all those judges. There's five or six judges that will do anything I want. They don't do it for [my friend], so it's for me. I mean, we've got some great friends over there."
The judges in question are not named in the TV station's report.
Read the story at I-Team: Trading Favors for Campaign Cash?
In a continuing series about responses to the survey on the judiciary, Franky Geary at the R-J reports that female judges did not fair well in the courtesy department. In fact, the female judge ranked highest in courtesy (Judge Gonzales), achieved a ranking that was lower than all but two of the male judges.
The R-J does note that the results could be skewed; “One probable factor is that two-thirds of the attorneys surveyed were men and, according to experts who study judges and the courts, attorneys and litigants favor a judge similar to them, whether in age, ethnic makeup or gender.”
Ya think? Haven’t there been studies showing that the exact same statement or conduct coming will be perceived one way if coming from a man, and very differently if coming from a woman?
Might a judge be perceived as “discourteous” simply because she is assertive enough to control her courtroom?
See the R-J article at Lawyers rate female jurists as less courteous than men.
The Supreme Court directed that an answer be filed in Halverson's challenge to being required to run for reelection. see Order Directing Answer and Setting Oral Argument
That answer was filed last week. See Answer of Harvard L. Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, to Original Petition.
Lomax argues that Halverson 1) named the wrong parties and failed to include necessary parties (including candidates for all the other two year terms created at hte same time as Halverson's)positions created , 2) waited too long to challenge the validity of her two year term; and 3) requests relief that is not appropriate.
Conspicuously absent was anything refuting the merits of Halverson's contention regarding the infirmity of the two year positions.
The last argument refers to Halverson's request that her term be extended for another four years. Lomax argues that it was clear that Legislature wanted judges elected on the same cycle, and accordingly, if unable to create a two year terms for the new judges, might have made the the new judicial positions effective in 2008. Lomax asserts that this is the status quo, and therefore, no relief is required. However, unspoken in Lomax's argument is the problem of what to do with all the decisions made by judges who, if Halverson's argument were accepted, were in consitutionally infirm positions.
Dare we put our hopes in the success of a laches argument? Hmm. When would laches attach for other potential challengers to decisions made by any of these judges?
This is becoming very interesting. And even a little scary.
Proving she still has a few tricks the sleeve of her judicial robe, Judge Elizabeth Halverson has filed a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Nevada claiming she is entitled to a six year term, and should not have to run for reelection this year. Halverson claims that the additions to judicial positions for the Eighth Judicial district in 2005 in SB 195, including her own department 23, with an initial term of two years, violates Nev. Const., Article 6, § 5, setting the terms of judgeships at six years. She's seeking to prevent the election for her seat from occurring.
Clever argument, although it does kind of suggest she despairs of winning reelection fair and square.
But I wonder if perhaps Judge Halverson considered what could happen if SB 195 were held unconstitutional. Of course, there would be a severability argument, but couldn’t there also be strong arguments that the judicial positions created are invalid entirely or ineffective unless the election was expressly for a six yer term? Not that such invalidation would be a good thing, since a lot more would be at stake than her position - including two other departments. But those arguments seem kind of obvious to me.
Don't blame Halverson's lawyers for this one. She filed the writ pro se.
Thanks to Jon Ralston and the Las Vegas Sun for posting the writ.
Family court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio has responded to the Complaint filed against him by the Nevada Commission for Judicial Discipline.
See previous posts about this judicial scandal at Yet another judge scandal and Free lunches, trains, and other previously unknown judicial perks
I’ve not seen the response, but I’ve read a couple of reports on it. Del Vecchio contends the relationship with his former step daughter was consensual. He notes that the Clark County Office of Diversity concluded the judge's relationship with Murray was consensual and his conduct "did not rise to the level of sexual harassment under the law."
It's not clear, but i think the allegations about the photos taken when the accuser was 14 are brushed off as having occurred before he was a judge.
You can read the reports too:
ReviewJournal.com - News - Judge denies claim of abuse, declares ...
Judge Says He Loved Accuser, Denies Abuse - KCRA 3 News Story ...
Somehow, I neglected to point out that the Nevada Supreme Court had denied Judge Halverson's petition for writ of prohibition, in which she had requested the disciplinary proceedings against her be dismissed.
See Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition for the Court's decision.
Aside from allowing the proceedings against Halverson to continue, the Court's decision also holds that the Commission had been misreading NRS 1.4663 and 1.4667. The Commission understood those statutes to allow the filing of formal charges only when the investigation was completed. The court held that charges could be supplemented if additional investigation yielded additional evidence.
The Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission voted, 18-2, to support the constitutional change that would end judicial elections in Nevada and instead, appoint state judges through a merit selection system similar to that currently used to fill mid term vacancies. The proposed amendment , approved last year by the Nevada Assembly, must be approved by the legislature again next year, and then put to the voters in 2010.
See news reports at Supreme Court commission approves plan to change how judges are chosen (RJ)
Panel endorses plan to change how Nevadans pick judges (Nevada Appeal)
The Nevada Supreme Court will hold a Public Administrative Meeting concerning indigent defense on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 3 pm.
The meeting will held at the Supreme Court’s Courtroom in Carson City (not Reno, as I previously posted while apaprenlty brain dead!). Video conferencing will be available the Court’s courtroom in the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas. Click here to view the agenda.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments at UNLV yesterday, the first time the Court has sat at the law school. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco and Jay S. Bybee of Las Vegas. The arguments were held in the Thomas & Mack Moot Court Facility
The Court heard three cases, including arguments by Federal Public Defender Franny Forsman that former Clark County commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey should receive a new trial due to exclusion of witnesses offered to challenge the credibility of star prosecution witness Michael Galardi. Forsman also argued that the instructions to the jury should have required them to find Kincaid-Chauncey accepted money with the intent to vote in favor of Galardi.
The other two cases heard were Borodkin v. Omni Air International, an appeal of a summary judgment for the defense in a wrongful discharge and defamation case and another criminal matter, United States v. Flaherty.
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline filed its Answer to Judge Halverson’s Emergency Petition for a Writ of Prohibition, or in the Alternative a Writ of Mandamus on Tuesday.
The Answer is a curious mix of folksy discussion and defensive posturing. In general, the lead in to the argument is a bit strident, and even sneering. I speak, of course, as a brief writer occasionally guilty of both stridency and sneers, and have no doubt that I shall, in a brief I will write later today, refer to my opponent’s “gossamer claims,” since I quite liked that phrase.
On purely rhetorical grounds, I deplore the use of the series of self-righteous questions, appearing page 7. The indignation displayed therein is not unreasonable, of course, but such questions can all too easily put a reader on the defensive – especially questions that refer to the Court’s “admonitions” as “so general as to be impossible to comply with.” That just might be something less than persuasive to the authors of those admonitions.
Ultimately, the Answer makes a cogent point about the risk of employment of dismissal of an action as punishment for an alleged lack of alacrity in bringing formal charges. And certainly there can’t be any doubt that Commission has a lot on its plate, given the Del Vecchio situation. See posts about that discipline complaint here and here.
We can only wonder what else these poor folks have to investigate.
Del
The Complaint against Judge Vecchio has finally been posted by the Nevada Commission of Judicial Discipline.
As expected, the details of the allegations eclipse, by far, the charges against Halverson. No footrubs, but allegedly, in addition to sexual misconduct, he forced his staff to strongarm attorneys into buying him lunch. He also required them to buy him a train for Christmas. (On the other hand, sleeping on the bench apparently trumps sexual misconduct , as Del Vecchio has not been removed pending resolution of the charges -- see the R'J's stgory: SEX ALLEGATIONS: Caseload could be stripped ).
Continue Reading...The Sun reported yesterday in Prosecutor to fill Toy Gregory’s seat on municipal court, that Cynthia Leung, a prosecutor in the City Attorney’s Office, had been appointed to the Municipal Court judgeship left vacant by Judge Gregory’s death. Judge Leung will sit for the remainder of Judge Gregory’s term, until elections in mid-2009, at which time she could stand for election to the office.
Who would have thought Judge Halverson would have a rival for the title of most sordid disciplinary charges? Let’s face it, giving campaign donations to a couple of other judicial candidates just doesn’t compare to requiring staff to give foot rubs and sleeping on the bench.
Yet, amazingly, she’s lost the title. At least the charges against her didn’t involve sexual misconduct with a stepchild.
The R-J reported today in Clark County judge accused of sexual misconduct that the Nevada Commission for Judicial Discipline has formally charged Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio with several forms of misconduct, including sexual impropriety with a judicial assistant, racial slurs against staff members, and coercion of staff members into providing him meals and airline tickets. According to the R-J, the judicial assistant is alleged to have been the daughter of Del Vecchio’s ex-wife. The Complaint also alleges that when she was between the ages of 14 and 16, Del Vecchio took nude photos of her and had a sexual relationship with her. When she later worked as his judicial assistant, he required her to provide sexual favors.
Del Vecchio denies the charges.
The Complaint is not posted on the Commission’s website. However, KLAS-TV reports the complaint included a total of 38 charges. For those keeping track, that’s 24 charges more than for the former title holder.
Del Vecchio had filed to retain his seat in Department K in the upcoming election. He has three opponents: Ellen Bezian, Cynthia Guiliani, and Vincent Ochoa.
Channel 8 has nicely posted Judge Halverson’s Answer to the charges filed by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. Answers themselves are rarely interesting, but the affirmative defenses show some creative lawyering, what with the first amendment and other constitutional claims thrown in. The Judge also raises the American with Disabilities Act, which should make for an interest discussion of suitable accommodations for a sleepy judge.
The Answer made the ABA's website. Las Vegas Judge Denies Misconduct Allegations, Cites ADA
As with so many answers filed in Nevada, a number of the so called affirmative defenses aren’t actually affirmative defenses. The Nevada Supreme Court kindly defined the term recently in CCSD v. Richardson, See my post on that case here. Judge Halverson might want to review that case.
The Eighth Judicial District’s Mental Health Court gets some positive attention in the Sun’s article A Chance At a Real Life, written by Brian Eckhouse. Kudos to Senior Judge John McGroarty, who helped create the program
The Mental Health Court takes a therapeutic, rather than punitive, approach toward the mentally ill who become enmeshed in the criminal court system. Many participants benefit from assistance in maintaining medication for the mental illness, learning to stop self-medicating with illicit substances. They are offered life-management training and, as they progress, vocational rehabilitation.
A nice, symbolic touch mentioned in the article is the practice of pushing the plaintiff/defense tables together, so the parties sit together as a team. Aside from the success of the program for participants, a real advantage of the program is its tax-saving capability. Jailing people is expensive. The Mental Health Court spends about $13,000 per participant per year – but jailing them would cost $36,000.
Let’s hope the success of this and similar program will encourage efforts to employ therapeutic, rather than punitive, tactics to deal with substance abuse issues in general, instead of maintaining the ruinously expensive “War on Drugs.”
The Nevada Supreme Court denied Judge Halverson's request for a stay pending resolution of her writ petition. See Order Denying Motion for Stay .
Here’s the latest in the never ending saga of Judge Elizabeth Halverson. The judge has filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of Proceedings, requesting that her Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus be resolved before she be required to answer the formal statement of charges filed by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.
You may recall that the basis of the Petition for Writ was that the Commission had failed to act with appropriate speed in bring the formal charges. Filed prior to the issuance of the formal charges, the Petition calls the delay inexcusable and asks the Supreme Court to prohibit the Commission from taking further proceedings. Thus, there is just a touch of irony in Judge Halverson’s request that those proceedings, now formally commenced, be further delayed.
However, since the Supreme Court did order the Commission to respond to the Petition, even though by the time of that order, the formal charges had been issued, there is also a certain sense in having the issue of the writ resolved first.
I’ll let you know how the Supreme Court rules.
The Nevada Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing today on the proposed rules to govern the sealing and redacting of court records in civil cases. The hearing will be held in the Carson City courtroom starting at 2:00 p.m.
The court invites written comment on the proposed rule changes. Pursuant to the court's order, the deadline for submitting written comments is December 21, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. A complete copy of the Commission on Access, Preservation and Sealing of Court Records Petition for Adoption of Proposed District Court Rule Amending the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure is available for viewing on the Court's website.
Also on the agenda are proposed changes to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 in domestic relations matters. The Supreme Court Study Committee's report includes the full text of the proposed new rules and forms.
On November 8, 2007, the Nevada Supreme Court issued three published opinions:
In Douglas Disposal v. Wee Haul, Inc, the Nevada Supreme Court, opinion by Justice Saitta, held that regulation of construction waste collection falls within the police powers of the county government because construction waste poses public health and safety concerns. The exclusive franchise here did not violate the dormant commerce clause because it burdened interstate and intrastate commerce equally – no company, whether A Nevada company or a company from another state, other than Douglas Disposal, could haul waste within Douglas County.
In Nelson v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court, opinion by Justice Hardesty, held that NRS 484.348(3)(b), which prohibits drivers from operating a motor vehicle in such a manner as to endanger other persons or property while fleeing a police officer who has signaled for the driver to stop, is not unconstitutionally vague. The Court held that “an individual of average intelligence could easily discern whether he is endangering another person or property while fleeing a pursuing police vehicle.”
In Staccato v. Valley Hospital, the Nevada Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, held that a medical expert witness need not have the same credentials or classification as the defendant medical care provider, but instead, must possesses the skill, knowledge, or experience necessary to perform or render the medical procedure or treatment being challenged as negligent. The witness’s opinion must also be such that it would assist the jury. Here, in a case alleging malpractice by a emergency room nurse, the district court improperly excluded the expert opinion of an emergency room physician, regarding the standard of care for delivery of the type of medical treatment received by Staccato.
The Nevada Supreme Court today upheld the interim suspension of Judge Elizabeth Halverson. The opinion was drafted by Cheif Justice Maupin, and was unanimous among the unrecused justices. Justices Cherry and Gobbons had voluntarilty recused themselves.
The Court rejected the claims of violations of due process violations, and challenges to the Commission's authority to impose an interim suspense. The opinion then recounts at length the evidence presented at the Commission on Judicial Discpline's hearing, including the evidence fabvorable to Judge Halverson.
The court concludes:
A common thread running through judicial interim suspension decisions is the need to protect the integrity of and public confidence in the judiciary. The cumulative effect of Judge Halverson’s conduct was to seriously impair the functioning of the Eighth Judicial District Court. Judge Halverson’s own Department 23, of course, bore the brunt of these ill effects, but the record reveals that her conduct impinged on court administration beyond simply her chambers and courtroom. Moreover, in light of Judge Halverson’s rebuff to the three-judge committee’s offer of assistance and guidance and her refusal to tender any explanation for her behavior or assurances that it would improve, the Commission was justified in finding that Judge Halverson’s disregard of her duties under the Canons would continue. Finally, her behavior, documented before the Commission and widely discerned within the public domain, necessarily impacted the confidence that Nevadans generally, and Clark County citizens in particular, have in their judiciary. Thus, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Judge Halverson’s conduct rose to such a level that she posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice, thus warranting her interim suspension.
* * *
The interim suspension of a duly elected judge is a significant matter, and such a sanction should not be imposed lightly. Only when the Commission is satisfied that the threat posed by a judge cannot await the disposition of formal proceedings is such a powerful tool properly invoked, and the remainder of the discipline proceeding must progress with dispatch. In this case, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence before it met the required standard. As noted by the Michigan Supreme Court, even an elected judge is entitled to sit only while he or she adheres to the position’s requirements, including compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Matter of Halverson, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48 (November 1, 2007)
Lawjobs.com has the following report:
Longtime Rebel Alex Kozinski Prepares to Lead the 9th Circuit
I am pretty much as far from conservative as you can get, but this is one conservative judge whom I have no trouble respecting.
Briefing in In The Matter of The Hon. Elizabeth Halverson is now complete.
See Judge Halverson’s Supplement Brief Pursuant to 9/18/07 Order here .
And see the Respondent's Commission of Judicial Discipline’s Supplemental Brief here and its Appendix to Respondent's Supplemental Brief here
Can you have a Nevada law blog without mentioning OJ these days?
Apparently not.
But we can keep it limited. The 8th Judicial District has provided copies of the Declaration of Arrest and the Complaint.
Judge Elizabeth Halverson was featured in two of the R-J's reports today:
The Supreme Court granted the Discipline Commission's request for additional briefing: Fate of Halverson to be subject of new arguments.
Click here for the Order granting the Motion for Supplemental Briefing.
John L. Smith discusses Halverson's health in Maladies offer evidence against Halverson's claim she's up to the task
Nevada Commission on Judicial Commission has requested permission for additional briefing, alleging that during argument last Thursday, Halverson raised a new constitutional claim for the first time. The Commission requests an opportunity to brief the issue of whether the “interim suspension” statute, NRS 1.4675(3) is unconstitutional, and cannot be applied to her case since no formal charges have yet been brought.
Click here for the motion.
Starting with the arguements in In Re Discipline of Halverson, the Supreme Court Website Will Offer Audio Files of Arguments.
The Court anticipates the Halverson argument will be available at approximately 4 pm.
Oral argument in In re: Discipline of Halverson is scheduled for Thursday, September 13, at 1 pm in the Carson City Courtroom.
Briefs in the matter are available here.
The Nevada Supreme Court Clerk’s Office reports that it filed case number 50,000 yesterday, Aug. 13, 2007. Cases have been filed sequentially since Nevada became a state on Oct. 31, 1864, although the first case actually was not filed until 1865, according to Clerk of the Court Janette Bloom.
It took 112 years before Nevada reached the 10,000 mark in Supreme Court filings. But filings have been much more frequent in recent years. In fact, case numbers 40,001 through 50,000 were filed in just the last five years. That means the Supreme Court must now handle in five years the number of cases it handled during Nevada’s first 112 years.
To cope with the workload increase, the Nevada Supreme Court expanded from its original three justices to five justices in 1967, and then to seven justices in 1999. The last increase allowed the court to sit in three-justice panels for many cases or as the full court for the most important matters.
On Sept. 18, at 12 noon, in Courtroom 12A, the Eighth Judicial District will conduct a Bench/Bar meeting. The topic will be the proposed a mandatory settlement conference program for all civil cases not otherwise entering the arbitration, mediation and/or short trial programs.
In In The Matter of The Hon. Elizabeth Halverson, District Judge, County of Clark, State of Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court denied Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s request for a stay of her suspension in her appeal of the Commission on Judicial Discipline’s action against her. The Court ordered expedited briefing of the appeal, requiring judge Halverson to submit her opening brief by 4 pm, August 13; the Commission to file it Answering Brief by 4 pm, August 24, and Judge Halverson to file her reply by 9 am, August 28. The Court also ordered the court Clerk to schedule oral argument before the full court, for a one hour time slot, in September.
In Judicial Discipline Commission: Judge's prospects evaluated , the R-J reports that Senior District Judge Charles Thompson will preside over Judge Halverson’s cases while she is on paid leave. Other senior judges may also be assigned as the suspension continues pending the completion of the investigation by the Commission on Judicial Discipline.
Effective 5 pm today, July 25, 2007, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline suspended Eighth Judicial District Judge Elizabeth Halverson, finding she "poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice." This finding was based on four grounds:
1. She lacks sufficient legal abilities to conduct criminal
2. She failed to perform duties in an impartial manner and created a hostile work environment
3. She fell asleep during at least one trial.
4. She failed to cooperate with other judges and court administrators.
The commission was unconvinced that other judges were “out to get” Halverson.
The Commission filed its 28 page order under seal; however, the Nevada Supreme Court ordered the document filed as a public document.
In Panel endorses limiting public defender cases , the R-J reports that a commission appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court is recommending that a cap be placed on the number of cases public defenders handle. Currently, state public defenders in Clark County average 400 felony cases, a caseload that seriously hampers their ability to provide "adequate, appropriate and competent" representation to indigent defendants.. A majority of commission members favor limiting that number to 192 per year. While proponents of the cap say it is necessary to meet ABA minimum standards, as well as fulfill constitutional obligations, dissenters say the cap is too costly.
The R-J reported on Monday's meeting of the Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission in Buckley: Judge selection plan faces challenges.
Ty Cobb, a member of the commission identified as the father of the Aseemblyman of the same name, stated he expected the commission would support both of the constitutional resolutions (merit selection and creation of an intermediate appellate court) involving passed by the 2007 legislature. Paula Gentile, commission co-chair, doubted that all members would supoprt merit selection.
In Still on the bench: Therapist wrote: Halverson coping , the R-J discusses the comments of Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s therapist. The therapist’s statement was filed with the Judge’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed with the Supreme Court in the judge’s attempt prevent the Commission on Judicial Performance from conducting its suspension proceedings against her.
Those interested in the therapist’s statement, or other exhibits filed by Judge Halverson may access them here,
In a closed session yesterday, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline heard testimony regarding allegations that 8th Judicial District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson:
• Is "without sufficient legal abilities to conduct criminal cases," which could harm the administration of justice.
• Has failed to perform her duties impartially and diligently.
• Slept during a court proceeding on at least one occasion.
• Is biased against certain attorneys.
• Has failed to work cooperatively with other judges.
• Had failed to perform her judicial duties "promptly, efficiently and fairly."
See the stories in the RJ: Panel begins hearing on jurist and the Sun: Witnesses testify in secret, for and against judge
Congratulations to Elissa Cadish, who was appointed by Governor Gibbons to serve the remainder of retiring District Judge Joseph Bonaventure's term which expires in January 2009.
The Eighth Judicial District has approved sweeping changes to the system for appointing attorneys to indigent clients in Clark County. Among the changes:
• A panel of court officers must select the mot qualified contract attorneys to form a pool of 36.
• Assignments to judges will be random, and assignments will rotate after two years.• Contract defenders will be paid $6,000 a month (up from $3000) and an hourly fee of $100 for jury trials.
• Hourly fee assignments will be limited.
•Court-appointed work will be randomly audited.
What remains to be decided is whether contract attorneys may delegate some of the work to associates, whether there will be limits on ratios of a publicly and privately contract work, and to what performance standards, if any, will the contract attorneys be held.
See the story in the R-J at Contract lawyer system changed
The Commission on Preservation, Access and Sealing of Court Records voted unanimously against the practice of “super-sealing” court records in most cases. “Super-sealing” removes the name of the case, the docket number or any normally present identifier from the public record." Exceptions might include cases with trade secrets, or grand jury indictments prior to arrest.
The commission was formed by the Nevada Supreme Court to study the process of sealing court records and make recommendations. Formation of the commission was prompted by a series of R-J articles about lawsuits that had been sealed.
See the story in the R-J: Panel votes to recommend against super-sealing records in most cases
On Tuesday, Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice William Maupin announced three nominees for the judicial seat vacated by former 8th judicial court judge Joseph Bonaventure:
Nancy Allf
Elissa Cadish
Kathleen Paustian
Paustian and Allf were also finalists in the vacancies earlier this year.
Governor Gibbons must choose one of the three to serve until the expiration of Bonaventure’s term in 2009.
The Ninth Circuit announced yesterday that Bankruptcy Judge Bruce A. Markell has been appointed to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), effective August 1, 2007. The appointment has a term of seven yeas. Judge Markell is taking one of the seats to be vacated by BK Judge Phillip Brandt of Seattle and BK Judge Erithe A. Smith of Santa Ana. BJ Judge Meredith A. Jury, of Riverside, will take the other seat.
See the results for the municipal elections here.
The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an order scheduling a public hearing on June 21, 2007, regarding the amendments proposed by the Justices of the Supreme Court of Nevada to the Code of Judicial Conduct. The proposed amendments prohibit fund raising by most judicial candidates, if they are unopposed. . Written comments will be accepted until June 19, 2007.
The Court also issued an order scheduling a public hearing on the operation of the Judicial Council. There are no proposed changes; instead, the Court requests the appearance of representatives of the Judicial Council to respond to questions relating to the continuing viability of the Judicial Council. The hearing will June 21, 2007. If interested in participating in the hearing, notify the Clerk of the Court by 5 p.m., June 20th.
Harmful Error lists the latest Nevada bills affecting the court system signed by Governor Gibbons here.
Meanwhile, those with an H. v. H. habit can get their fix from the Sun:
Court related news reports from the R-J actually involved something other than Halverson v. Hardcastle today, with a positive report on Justice of the Peace Doug Smith’s ticket handling: Judge handles tickets just fine.
However, the R-J is disdainful of proposed salary increases for the judges who handled more cases than just about any other in the country. Editorial: Meanwhile
Perhaps the R-J should consider the thoughts expressed in “Judicial pay: Attracting the best," wherein Abner Mikva, a former federal judge commenting on congressional reuctance to raise judicial pay, notes “The real problem of inadequate judicial pay is the limits it puts on attracting judges to the bench in the first place. . . . Lawyers most appropriate for consideration as judges are at the height of their earning power in the private sector. At one time law schools were a good place to look, but even those salaries have advanced beyond the judicial levels now in existence. To ask a lawyer to go on the bench from the private sector is usually to ask that person to take a drastic reduction in earnings, as well as the other problems of living in a public fishbowl.”
While the prposed salaries of $160-170K may seem high, the reality is that good lawyers are paid much more. To put the matter in perspective, a national law firm that recently entered the Las Vegas market announced its salary for first year associates—that means 2007 law school graduates—is $130,000. There are many law firms nationally offering starting salaries of $160,000. Given that reality, raising the pay of district court judges to $160,000 and supreme court justices to $170,000 really doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch.
Darren Mack told Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick that he (Mack) had killed his estranged wife and shot Washoe District Judge Chuck Weller. Unfortunately, Gammick hadn’t told Mack the latter’s family had already procured counsel for him. As a result, Eight Judicial District Court Judge Douglas Herndon excluded the confession from Mack’s trial. Also excluded were the tape recordings of the conversations between Gammick and Mack. Nevada law requires both parties to consent to taping of phone calls are being recorded. Mack gave no consent. Herndon ruled in favor of the prosecution with respect to evidence seized from Mack’s condo, and also denied a request to sever the prosecutions of the two shootings.
Herndon was appointed to preside over the trial after the Washoe County judges were disqualified to preside over the trial of the man accused of shooting one of their own.
See the Reno-Gazette story: Judge: Mack confession can’t be used
The R-J’s latest input on the continuing saga:
Jane Anne Morrison comments: Judicial commission might have a say on Halverson controversy
and an update on another of Judge Halverson’s legal pending legal matters: Deadline nears in judge's yard battle
The Halverson v. Hardcastle dispute provides wonderful ammunition for supporters of merit selection of judges. John C. Smith at the R-J weighs in again today with “As justice center rumbles, the case for appointing judges grows by the day.”
The Sun offers this editorial: Turmoil in the Courthouse.
The change in the filing date, approved by the Nevada Legislature in AB 505, was signed into law by Governor Gibbons May 18. The filing period for all non-judicial elections remains unchanged. The filing deadlines for Municipal Court judges, who face voters in different years and on different election cycles than state and county judges, were not changed.
This morning, the Las Vegas Sun chimes into the discussion with "Judges step up feud, courthouse cringes." Unlike most reports, this article looks beyond the allegation sof outrageously inappropriate conduct to the actual legal issue underlying the case: the power of a chief judge.
Over the holiday weekend, the R-J had the following reports related to this ongoing saga:
Morrison: Judge just doesn't see failure to treat people with dignity, respect.
In a refreshing change from other news, in “LV Municipal Court candidates tout experience” the R-J reports that both candidates for the Las Vegas Municipal Court judgeship seem well qualified. Martin Hastings and Lynn Avants both seek the Department 6 position. Hastings is a private attorney, who previously worked as a prosecutor. Avants is a deputy public defender.
Or perhaps allusion to Part VI, with the fan favored original title "The Revenge of the CJ" would be more appropriate? (OK - so I'm a sci-fi geek.)
Anyway --Judge Kathy Hardcastle filed her response to Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto.
The Response first moves to strike fact statements in the petition unsupported by admissible evidence.
The Response next sets forth a factual statement, supported by sworn affidavits, including allegations of extremely inappropriate treatment of staff and court patrons by Judge Halverson, and the steps undertaken by the Chief Judge in response to the complaints about the conduct. The response also provides details that led to the order banning Judge Halverson from the Regional Justice Center.
In the Legal Argument section of the Response, the CJ challenges Judge Halverson’s authority to seek a writ of quo warranto. The authority given to a chief judge by statute and rule is recited. Security concerns are then discussed.
Exhibits to the Response may be accessed here (part I), here (part II), and here (part III).
Heady stuff, without question. Ligth sabers probably won't be needed.
Justice Mark Gibbons has recused himself from participation in determining the outcome of the petition for writ filed by Judge Elizabeth Halverson. Halverson had requested Gibbons be disqualified following the justice's disclosure of conversations he has had related to the pending issues.
See the Notice of Recusal
As reported here last week, Nevada Supreme Court Justice Mark Gibbons had disclosed in a court filing conversations he had had with court personnel regarding issues relating to Judge Elizabeth Halverson. Yesterday, Halverson moved to disqualify Gibbons from sitting on her pending case before the high court.
Since Halverson challenges the authority of a chief judge to make case assignments, and since Gibbons disclosed that he had suggested that Halverson’s docket could be restricted to civil cases, the move is not surprising.
Supreme Court Justice Micharl Cherry had already recused himself from involvement in the case.
Harmful Error lists the bills relating to criminal justice courts and prisons signed by Governor Gibbons on or before May 18, 2007.
Charles Dickens would be happy to see AB 575, which repeals NRS 425.100, a statute authorizing counties to create “workhouses for the accommodation or employment of such indigents as may, from time to time, become a county charge.” maybe the state isn't full of Scrooges, after all.
Today is the day Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle is to respond to the Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto.
Meanwhile, here’s what the media has had to say over the past few days, with a few twists in the saga:
Over the weekend, the R-J had these reports
“Editorial: Big day at the courthouse.”
“WEEK IN REVIEW: Halverson returns to bench after ban lifted”
Yesterday, the Channel 8 had a report entitled Judge Halverson Reveals Illegal Ticket Fixing
And in today’s R-J, John L. Smith gives more info about the ticket “fixing” revelation in “All these court house favors must stop – at least until I get mine.”
The Nevada Supreme Court has partially stayed the order of Eighth Judicial District Court Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle barring District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson from the Clark County Regional Justice Center. The stay is conditioned upon Halverson conforming to “the protocol applicable to other elected Eighth Judicial District Court Judges.” In the same order, the Court also directed Hardcastle to file an answer to Halverson’s Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto by 4:00 pm of May 23, 2007. Click here for a copy of the order.
The temporary assignment of Judge Huffaker to Halverson’s docket has been rescinded.
Justice Mark Gibbons has disclosed a non-disqualifying interest. Gibbons notes that in February, he met briefly with Justice Michael Cherry (who has recused himself from this matter due to involvement by his prior chambers staff) and Halverson for a brief discussion of the need to be courteous to all attorneys and litigants. He also noted that he had brief conversations with Judge Betsy Gonzales and Court Administrator Chuck Short regarding Halverson’s “purported meeting with a criminal jury during deliberations and the legal ramifications.” At that time, he stated the chief judge had the authority, under the Eighth Judicial District Court rules, to reassign a district judge to a specialized all civil calendar and that such assignment may be a better fit for Judge Halverson.” He does not believe these remarks indicate bias but discloses them so the parties to consider whether his disqualification is necessary. See the disclosure here.
In “Closed door conference today for judicial dispute,” The R-J reports that the Supreme Court will meet today to consider Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s court filings seek stay and review of Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle’s order banning Halverson from the Regional Justice Center. Justice Michael Cherry will recuse himself from the proceedings.
The court will likely determine whether they will ask Hardcastle to respond to the pleadings.
The R-J reports in “Indigent defense change endorsed” that at the first meeting of the Nevada Supreme Court’s commission formed to review indigent representation practices endorsed immediate changes to the system. This endorsement clears the way for a committee of local judges to proceed with their proposed reforms. The chair of that committee, District Court Judge Stewart Bell states that the committee will meet to polish its proposals within the next few days.
In addition to filing a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto yesterday, Judge Halverson also filed an Emergency Motion for Stay. Halverson asks the high court to stay the order entered by Judge Hardcastle on May 10, 2007, barring Halverson from entering the Regional Justice Center until further notice.
The documents filed in Halverson v. Hardcastle, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 49453, may be viewed or downloaded from the web site of the Nevada Supreme Court. Click here for links to Halverson’s Petition, Exhibits to that Petition, and her Emergency Motion for Stay.
Additionally, local media weigh in:
The R-J has this report on the dispute: “District judge asks justices to settle fight.” This article includes Judge Hardcastle's comments regarding the issues raised in Judge Halverson's petition.
KLAS – Channel 8 – “I-Team Exclusive: Judge Halverson responds.”
Judge Halverson appeared on KNPR this morning. The broadcast will be available online tomorrow at KNPR’s website.
In addition to filing a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto yesterday, Judge Halverson also filed an Emergency Motion for Stay. Halverson asks the high court to stay the order entered by Judge Hardcastle on May 10, 2007, barring Halverson from entering the Regional Justice Center until further notice.
The documents filed in Halverson v. Hardcastle, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 49453, may be viewed or downloaded from the web site of the Nevada Supreme Court. Click here for links to Halverson’s Petition, Exhibits to that Petition, and her Emergency Motion for Stay.
Additionally, local media weigh in:
The R-J has this report on the dispute: “District judge asks justices to settle fight.” This article includes Judge Hardcastle's comments regarding the issues raised in Judge Halverson's petition.
KLAS – Channel 8 – “I-Team Exclusive: Judge Halverson responds.”
Judge Halverson appeared on KNPR this morning. The broadcast will be available online tomorrow at KNPR’s website.
Judge Elizabeth Halverson sought relief from the Nevada Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto. The Petition requests that Judge Kathy Hardcastle be required to appear before the Nevada Supreme Court to justify her actions, including requiring Halverson to submit to a panel of judges for mentoring, stripping Halverson of her criminal docket, and ultimately, barring Halverson from the courtroom.
Thanks to Harmful Error, where Halverson’s Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto is posted.
Just a few short weeks ago, I said these games do have rules, but the subsequent bench-slapping escalation makes me wonder.
Harmful Error discusses Nevada authority that may prove relevant as the Hardcastle/Halverson match progresses.
On Friday, the R-J reported that the Nevada Supreme Court appointed a Senior Judge Stephen Haffaker to replace Eight Judicial District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson indefinitely. Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle issued the unusual order after discovery that Halverson had hired personal body guards and allowed them to by pass the courthouse security measures. Halverson reportedly hired the guards because, after her bailiff resigned, no new bailiff was permanently assigned to her courtroom.
Boyd School of Law Professor Jeff Stempel is quoted as saying, "It seems like trying to swat a fly with a bazooka on both sides, to be honest, both Judge Halverson bringing in the security guards and Judge Hardcastle barring her from the premises."
Click here for the complete story.
I view the the authority of a chief judge to make administrative decisions about a court as fairly broad, but my eyebrows certainly rose at the new that a sitting judge had been barred from the courthouse. However, the Supreme Court's action certainly lends support to Chief Hardcastle's action.
The Northern Panel of the Nevada Supeme Court, consisting of Justices Parraguire, Hardesty and Saitta, will hear argument of four cases that originated in the Elko area at Elko's Spring Creek High School. The four cases are
9:00 AM -- LOOMIS VS. WHITEHEAD (47362)
9:30 AM -- DEWEY (SHELLI) VS. STATE (46854)
12:00 PM -- FERNANDEZ (SALVANA) VS. STATE (48127)
12:30 PM -- MILES VS. INT'L GAME TECHNOLOGY (42730)
Local sparring between judges is heating up to what surely must be unprecedented levels.
The R-J reports that Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson was banned from the Justice Center on Thursday, because she had employed personal body guards and allowed them to by pass security measures. Chief Judge Hardcastle’s administrative order is said to assert that Judges Stewart Bell, Art Ritchie and Betsy Gonzalez recommended to Hardcastle that she bar Halverson from the bench until Halverson agrees to meet with them and "provide assurances that her disruptive behavior and threats to courthouse security will no longer continue."
Click here for the complete article.
In these partisan times, unanimous votes aren’t all that common in any legislature, including the Nevada State Assembly. But the vote in favor of amending the Nevada Constitution to create an intermediate court of appeals received just such unanimous support yesterday. If SJR9 is approved again in the 2009 legislative session, the issue will be presented to the voters.
Similar efforts to create an intermediate court have failed before. However, the population, and with it, the number of cases filed in the Supreme Court (consistent with the vast increase in district court filings) has also risen to a degree that greatly burdens that court, and further delays a final disposition for all litigants. Nevada needs an intermediate court to help with the increased cases. It is heartening to see the legislature put aside partisan differences for the sake of an issue fully deserving of unanimous support.
See the report in the R-J.
The R-J today has a story entitled "Court decision to review ads worries some Nevada lawyers."
I'll worry only if every blog post has to be submitted within 15 days.
The Assembly Judicial Panel voted unanimously today in favor of SJR 9, which seeks a constitutional amendment to create an intermediate appellate court in Nevada. The Nevada Appeal reports on the vote here.
Prospective changes to Federal Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civ Pro and Crim Pro Rules
The U.S. Supreme Court todaysent its amendments of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Bankruptcy Procedure, Civil Procedure, and Criminal Procedure. Unless Congress objects, the amendments take effect December 1, 2007.
Earlier this month, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline issued two advisory opinions regarding judicial conduct.
The first, Opinion JE07-001, decides two related questions. First, judges are not disqualified from presiding over cases in which a party is represented by an attorney from a law firm representing on a pro bono basis a judges’ association of which the judges are members before the legislature in support of enactment of legislation increasing the number of judges within the judges’ district. The opinion goes on to hold that a judge could reasonably conclude that disclosure of this representation is not required, but such decision should be made by each individual judge.
The second, Opinion JE07-002, determines that a judge who is a parent and president of a charitable organization which supports a particular high school may not serve on a committee to develop and recommend a mandatory, but random, drug testing program for student athletes at the high school.
The Las Vegas Sun reports that the attorneys from the Special Public Defender's Office have filed motions on three cases decided by the Court en banc, with former Supreme Court Justice Becker a member of the panel. The motions assert that Becker should have recused herself as she was negotiating with the Clark County District Attorney’s Office for what the Sun calls “a high paying, high ranking job” at the time the opinions were issued.
The opinions in Johnson v. State, Thomas v. State, and Summers v. State were issued on December 28, 2006, after Becker had failed to win reelection to the Supreme Court. Each of the cases raised an issue of whether the defendant’s right to confront witnesses had been violated by the use of hearsay in the sentencing phase of the trial. The convictions were affirmed, with Justice Becker siding with the majority in each of the 4-3 decisions. However, the minority opinion in each was a concurrence in the result, with the minority justices expressing the view that in future cases, objections to the use of hearsay in the sentencing portion of a death penalty case should be permitted.
Will the next move be checkmate or a slide into Molasses Swamp?
On Wednesday, I noted the R'J's story reporting that Eighth Judicial District Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle had ordered a reshuffling of Judge Elizabeth's Halverson's cases. The R-J reports today that Halverson intends to resist the order. The story by R-J reporter K.C. Howard quotes Halverson as saying "Some of us play chess and some of us are playing Candy Land." That remark was reportedly given in conclusion of Halverson's response to a prosecutor's inquiry about where his case would be next week. Halverson is also reported to have questioned the authority of the Chief Judge to transfer cases.
Hardcastle is said to have responded that the EDCR permit her, as Chief Judge, to assign cases. A quick review confirms that EDCR 130 expressly authorizes the Chief Judge to "make regular and special assignments of all judges." However, in response to concerns raised by defense counsel as to scheduled trials, Hardcastle conceded accommodation might be made where the rights of criminal defendants would otherwise suffer.
I am not taking sides here, but in my objective opinion, one of these judges is in zugswang. One thing chess and Candyland have in common is both require the players to obey the rules.
The Nevada Supreme Court yesterday announced its unanimous approval of new rules for attorney advertising. The new rules go into effect September 1, 2007.
The new rules prohibit attorneys form making claims that could lead to unjustified expectations claims, and, if special fee arrangements are part of the advertising, require complete disclosure of the details. Attorneys must also maintain resumes to be given to prospective clients upon request.
Another important change is that the new rules no longer attempt to regulate taste in attorney advertising. No doubt this will help the court avoid situation like that of the Florida Bar, as reported in the previous post.
The text of the amendments appear to still be posted on the Nevada Supreme Court web site as proposed changes.
If you were scheduled to show up in Departments 17, 18 or 23 on Monday, you might want to call the court and ask where your case will be.
The R-J has an article today that begins, “Chief District Court Judge Kathy Hardcastle is stripping District Judge Elizabeth Halverson's docket of criminal cases.” Because of difficulties with transferring individual cases, all of Judge Halverson’s current caseload will be transferred to newly appointed Judge David Barker. The cases originally assigned to Barker will go to another new appointee, Judge Michael Villani. Halverson will receive the civil cases originally assigned to Villani. The change is effective Monday.
Hardcastle explains the move as an opportunity to allow Halverson to gain experience. Earlier in the year, Halverson had difficulties in criminal cases due to her speaking to deliberating jurors outside the presence of counsel. Three veteran judges, Sally Loehrer, Stewart Bell, and Art Richie, had been appointed to mentor Halverson. They recommended her caseload be reduced.
Halverson, however, calls the move “just more of the punitive measures I’ve had to endure,” apparently referencing her close election battle with the Chief Judge’s husband in a race for a Family Court judgeship in 2004. After losing narrowing in that election, Halverson won her District Court seat in 2006.
The Supreme Court of
Enter keywords:
