Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Wed Roundup


Review-Journal continues coverage of Noel Gage's mistrial [ahem . . . narrow escape from prison] (Review-Journal)

Gov. Gibbons vows that he will take legal action to remove medical board members (Review-Journal)

Judge Wagner is asking the Nevada Supreme Court to rethink its attempt to provide the poor with decent representation. (Review-Journal) Some critics of the changes suggest Nevada simply cannot afford to give adequate representation to poor defendants. (Nevada Appeal) [this may be the most telling story about the legal community in the state--Judges are literally arguing that the justice system cannot afford due process for the poor, so the Supreme Court shouldn't ask them to]

An editorial praises the role of trial lawyers in Nevada (Review-Journal)

Something or some smell at the Regional Justice Center is making people ill (Las Vegas Sun)

Finally, A Reno jury returned a $590 million judgement against Darren Mack (Nevada Appeal)

3 comments:

  1. Adequate representation is decent representation. Indigent criminals are only entitled to adequate representation under the Constitution, why should Nevada provide them any more than that? I'm sure if a ballot measure was proposed that would raise taxes to provide criminals with better counsel it would get crushed. It's not as if these people are being represented by trained chimps, these are attorneys who went to law school, passed the bar and are currently in good standing. Good grief, the same argument could be made that taxpayers should pay to provide poor people with cars, since bicycles provide only "adequate" transportation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What? I know several lawyers in town who have less than half the legal skill of a trained chimp.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The NV Supreme Court report indicated that indigent residents (particularly in Clark Co.) are getting less than "adequate" representation. This is in part because the defendant's PD is loaded down with an avg of 364 felony and gross misdemeanor cases, when the recommended national avg is 150.

    I'm not some flaming liberal calling for every PD to have unlimited resources. It has to be realistic with the state's budget constraints, but 364 per PD?

    That's pretty damn excessive. How do you give adequate representation when you don't know what your client was charged with or even what your client's name is?

    ReplyDelete