Twenty Five Dollars

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)