Vol. 4, No. 3
.jpg)
December 1, 2006
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
Top News Story:
Judiciary Review Committee Made Up Of
Some Considered Ethically Challenged
Comes On Heels Of L.A. Times Investigative
Reports, Federal Court Rebuke
by Johnny Gunn
Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Rose has formed a blue ribbon commission to study all aspects of the Nevada Judiciary. He said he expects the review to extend into 2008 but would like to see at least some results before the end of the 2007 Legislative session. Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution is how the Nevada Court system came into being and Rose is calling the review panel the Article 6 Commission.
In June of this year the Los Angeles Times ran a series of investigative reports that blistered the court system in the Silver State, naming names, and discussing questionable cases. The articles were written by long time investigative reporters Michael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel who are listed as staff writers. Among those pointed out as having questionable financial dealings is attorney Gene T. Porter named by Chief Justice Rose to the Judicial Review Committee. According to Rose, the Commission is to tackle such controversial issues as the influence of money and special interests in judicial elections and the accountability and discipline of Nevada judges.
Porter is a former Nevada District Judge and according to the Times report a group of Las Vegas lawyers sponsored a fundraiser in California for him. It has been determined that some of the attorneys putting money in the jar for the judge had cases pending in his court. Porter is no longer a judge, but many question whether he should sit on a commission dealing with financial accountability of judicial election practices. Attorneys all over the state make large donations to judicial campaigns, many consider it "protection" money, but also will not come forward to complain. Cases are lost by attorneys that don't make contributions, and cases are lost when attorneys are quoted in news reports.
Washoe County District Judge Brent Adams has been calling for financial reform for some time, even went to the Supreme Court and asked that for consideration of what he called a buffer between judges and raising money for campaigns. The American Bar Association (ABA) has such an item in the code of conduct and Adams says it's past due for Nevada judicial candidates to follow the code by law. The Supreme Court can change the way judicial candidates are allowed to raise funds by a simple rule change.
The Court will hold a public hearing on Adams's request for the change on December 5 in Carson City. Adams wants prohibit the personal solicitation and acceptance of campaign contributions by judges and those running for judicial office. It would be a first step in judicial campaign finance reform and many say it is years behind times. The code has been in ABA language since 1990. Few if any judges in Nevada recuse themselves when cases come before them dealing with campaign contributors as the law requires, and they rarely if ever disclose such facts, again as the law requires.
Chief Justice Rose said, "It is an appropriate time to conduct a comprehensive review of the Nevada Court system." He said there have been numerous cases of the state's courts being in the news quite a bit lately. A new member of the Supreme Court is Nancy Saitta, formerly of the Clark County District Court and discussed liberally in the Times articles. It was reported that of the 55 attorneys or law firms giving $500 or more to her campaign war chest, all had cases pending before her bench. Nationally syndicated crime reporter Steve Miller has attempted to tie her to Rick Rizzolo, he who is about to be incarcerated in a federal prison, and to other mob or criminal elements in Clark County.
A part of the Nevada judicial canon is judges recusing themselves for certain acts including campaign donations. An open judiciary would preclude a judge making a decision on a case in which an attorney had contributed to the election campaign. Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution addresses these issues:
• Establishment of all judgeships in the state
• Terms of office and the election process
• Compensation for Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judges
• Selection and service of the chief justice
• Appointment of judges when there is a mid term vacancy
• A disciplinary system for judges and justices through the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.
The issue of judicial candidates at any level of service accepting donations from persons who might come before the court needs to be taken a little more seriously than it has been lately. Attorneys being allowed to make campaign contributions should be eliminated entirely. It's an open door to corruption as can plainly be seen in every judge's campaign. A look at any Contributions Report from any judicial candidate will turn up a list of attorneys in that person's jurisdiction. Imagine if you will a powerful district judge approaching an attorney for a campaign contribution and the attorney saying no. Many believe that the practice also creates a distortion when an out of state attorney has a case before one of Nevada's powerful district judges and his opponent before the bench had contributed heavily to the judge's most recent campaign.
At about the same time Chief Justice Bob Rose was making his public announcement concerning judicial review of the state's court system, the federal court was in an uproar over a former Clark County district judge now sitting as a federal judge. Federal District Judge James Mahan has brought the wrath of the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals on himself. It isn't the first time Mahan has been at odds with judicial canon.
According to the recent Times' reports, Mahan "has approved more than $4.8 million in judgments and fees" during more than a dozen cases in which no statement could be found in which he disclosed a relationship with those who benefited from his decisions. In the current federal case, prosecutors have made claims that Mahan erred when he declared a mistrial in a recent stock scheme trial. Federal prosecutors in their appeal to the higher court are demanding that Mahan be taken off the case. The multi-million-dollar fraud case involves David Chapman, Sean Flanagan, and Herbert Jacobi.
Nevada judicial law follows the federal canon closely but Nevada's judges rarely follow the letter of the rules of conduct. Rulings in favor of friends are not uncommon. Rulings in favor of attorneys who have given the most in campaign donations are not uncommon. The idea of a judge disclosing any type of relationship with someone before his or her court is almost out of the question. It's been said many times that the penalties for such behavior are not heavy enough on the one hand and are rarely handed out on the other.
One attorney, and of course he demanded we not use his name, suggested that the way the state law reads, a judge found guilty of disclosure violations should be immediately arrested and charged with a felony, removed from office, and disbarred. An attorney nearby, again unnamed, said hanging would be a better solution. Both said it is sacrilege to have to donate to a judge's campaign in order to get a ruling in their favor.
The first meeting of the Article 6 Commission is expected to take place this month (December) at the Supreme Court building in Carson City. Whether or not the Adams' request will be part of the Article 6 Commission hearings or separate, isn't known as we go to press. Future Article 6 meetings are expected to take place every other month and rotate between Carson City and Las Vegas. Subcommittees created by the Commission will be working between meetings, according to Chief Justice Rose. "I anticipate a no-nonsense, hardworking Commission that gets to the important issues quickly and is able to make recommendations to the Legislature during the 2007 session," Rose said. He also said he believes the Commission will continue to work through 2007 and perhaps into 2008.
•••