The LV Sun headline reads: "Controversy erupts over prosecutors paying witnesses for interviews." The "controversy" in question arises from the Clark County District Attorney's interpretation of NRS 50.225, the statute that provides for the paying of witness fees and expenses. According to the statute, witnesses are "[t]o be paid a fee of $25 for each day’s attendance ... ," and includes a section authorizing the reimbursement of travel expenses.The current contention arose when the Nevada ACLU learned that the district attorney has been paying witnesses the same statutory $25 stipend for appearances at pre-trial conferences. The ACLU contends that the statute only provides for payment to witnesses for testifying during trial, on the record. The district attorney believes that the same law also allows for their pretrial conference payments.
Honestly, we don't see what all the fuss is about. It seems logical to us that if you are going to pay a witness for their time to show up during trial, the witness should also be entitled to reimbursement when they take the time to show up for a pretrial conference. Sure, some are worried that prosecutors are paying for favorable testimony, but it seems to us that any such witness bias could easily be cleared up by a competent defense attorney on cross examination.
However, it appears that the Sun and its commenters have sided with the ACLU on this one. We're interested in your take on this, WWL commenters. Does the reimbursement of witness fees by the district attorney's office bother you?
(LV Sun)
Wow, the Sun siding with the ACLU? Go figure.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you are also going to tell me that teh Sun endorsed Obama?
No kidding.
ReplyDeleteI'm with WWL on this one, don't see the "controversy." Those Sun commenters sure are passionate, however.
As someone who regularly reads the Sun and their comments, this is the first time I've ever seen a consensus.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm not comfortable with the payments, and I know people inside the PD's office are also amazed by it. From what I heard, they never knew this was happening.
You know the DA would be up in arms if they found out their opponent was participating in this practice. As a rule, I believe if the DA thinks it's not good for their opponent, it shouldn't be good for them.
@1:36
ReplyDeleteWhat "practice?" Reimbursing witnesses for showing up? I take it that you don't think the PD does this? Riiiiight.
Also, who are they supposed to "disclose" the payments to? Should they just send a copy of the receipt down to the PD's office, or publish it in the RJ?
Finally, where is the law requiring such disclosure? I know of no rule or professional code that requires an attorney to disclose payments made to a witness.
6:54
ReplyDeleteThat's not the question. The NRS is clear, so I'm wondering why it's ok for the DA to pay witnesses to appear at "pretrial" meetings.
Of course the PD pays witnesses to appear at trial, but I know for a fact that the PD doesn't pay for "pretrial."
Nitpicking over where to disclose doesn't change the fact that there should be a record kept.
You know of no rule that says governmental entities are supposed to keep track of where tax dollars go? Don't be silly.
Thanks for sharing,,,,,,,,,,,,
ReplyDelete___________________
Smarry
For 3 Months Enjoy Free 28 Premium Movie Channels