After two weeks and 16 testifying witnesses, Judge Michael Villani declared a mistrial in the case of former UMC chief Lacy Thomas (pictured) because Las Vegas police failed to turn over hundreds of pages of potential evidence.Judge Villani ruled that Thomas' defense was harmed when detectives withheld 577 pages of documents, most of which were minutes from weekly meetings that ACS Healthcare Services employees held with UMC department heads and executives. Villani felt that the documents could lead to other witnesses or evidence to help Thomas defend himself.
One of the prosecutors on the case, Scott Mitchell, argued that the documents were irrelevant because the criminal charges related only to the ACS contract terms, such as a lack of a termination clause, being unfavorable to UMC, not whether ACS did any work toward improving patient bill collections.
Villani said he found no wrongdoing by police or prosecutors in the incident, but that the potential damage to Thomas' defense could not be ignored. Thomas is represented by Attorney Dan Albregts.
Villani will meet with Albregts and prosecutors next week to reschedule the trial for later this year.
(LVRJ)
This is what happens when you put a defense attorney on the bench.
ReplyDeleteThat's what happens when you have Scott "punish his way into heaven" Mitchell on the case.
ReplyDeleteVillani was never much of a defense attorney and he certainly has done the defense bar no favors since taking the bench (unless you're Steve Wolfson or otherwise politically connected). He's a prosecutor at heart and is a piss-poor judge, even if he did make the right decision in this one case.
ReplyDeleteVillani did plaintiff's P.I. at Crockett & Myers.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the police withhold these, or any, documents? Why not just produce everything uncovered during the investigation and let the defense sort it out?
ReplyDeleteBetter to deal with potential negative information directly than suffer this result, no?
(Honestly curious; I'm a civil litigator with no criminal experience whatsoever.)
Ya ain't cheatin, ya ain't tryin.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't the defense find out about the documents prior to the trial? In criminal law, does the DA's office have to produce some type of privilege log?
ReplyDeleteDon't bother seeing Clash of the Titans. It sucks. Way too much yackity-yack and not nearly enough Kraken.
ReplyDelete10:06 -- Prosecutorial hubris.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the worst thing that happens if a prosecutor gets his/her hand caught in the cookie jar? They have to give the cookies back -- meaning that typically the worst thing that happens is that a mistrial is declared or if the failure to disclose is not discovered until after conviction, a retrial. And, if the failure to disclose is never discovered, why chalk up another conviction for the government. After all, it is only taxpayer money being spent to retry cases, so why not tilt the tables even further in favor of the prosecution. There is little if any disincentive to not withold evidence.
8:58- "This is what happens when you put a defense attorney on the bench"
ReplyDeleteWhat, you mean, the rule of law is upheld? Weird.
Prosecutors/police have an affirmative duty to hand over all exculpatory evidence. And if they dont, well, then the trial gets continued like it did here. Just like 11:09 said, there is no real punishment for prosecutors who fail to follow the rules.
11:07 AM - My thoughts exactly. Too much yackity yack and not enough action.
ReplyDeleteAs for this trial, puh-lease. Old fashioned graft in Clark County? No way! Impatient old black guy from the windy city thought he could pluck the goose quickly. Brother, it ain't so in Clark County. Pluck its feather more slowly, with some finesse. Maybe Reid can give you a tutorial.
EXCULPATORY. Not THE UNIVERSE. Brady does not give an obligation to give anything but that which is EXCULPATORY which means there can be judgement and disagreement about that. Mitchell is a good prosecutor. Appears his argument was not one the judge agreed with THAT IS COURT! Some of you think prosecutors actually sit around and think of ways to lie cheat and convict. I have known TONS of them and though there may be a few bad eggs, Scott is not one of them. I would hate to look at the world as such a sneaking, cheating place as some of you do.
ReplyDelete12:25 -- the definition of exculpatory is not left to the prosecution to define.
ReplyDeleteProsecutors are required to disclose to the defense evidence favorable to a defendant which is either exculpatory or impeaching and is material to either guilt or punishment. Evidence is "favorable" to the defendant if it either helps the defendant or hurts the prosecution. (In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 543-544.) In Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 203, 280-281, the United States Supreme Court stated:
"In Brady this Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, [United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 107], and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, [United States v. Bagley, (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676]. Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id at 682; see also [Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 433-434]."
In order to ensure compliance with these rules, the United States Supreme Court on more than one occasion has urged the "careful prosecutor" to err on the side of disclosure. (Kyles v. Whitley, supra, 514 U.S. 419, 440; United States. v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. 97, 110.)
Contrary to your assertion, I do not see the world as a sneaking, cheating place. It is simply that I have seen too many people abuse the system.
Tell me the reason why a prosecutor would not disclose potential Brady material? The only thing to be gained by non-disclosure is an upper hand at trial. That is precisely what Brady is designed to prevent.
@1:07
ReplyDeletethere is no harm in turning everything over, but no requirement. Better safe than sorry, but finding some piece, or in this case pieces, does not equate to mistrial. The judge decided to be cautious. No foul there. But when this trial comes on again, I will bet none of the 700 plus pages comes into play. If it does not, it would mean there was nothing exculpatory, nothing favorable to the defendant such that Brady contemplated turning it over. The prosecutor does not make the ultimate judgement when somethig is not turned over. But he does make a judgement when deciding what material Brady requires him to turn over under the law.
@ 1:15
ReplyDeleteI did limited criminal defense in a "former life". For 20 years I have done civil litigation.
The problem is that prosecutors tend to view the world very myopically. In civil litigation, parties are required to disclose evidence that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence". To state that it is likely none of the 700 plus pages comes into play is to define the requirements of Brady very narrowly. There may be material contained in those 700 plus pages that leads to additional witnesses or additional documents.
The biggest problem is that when prosecutors self define their Brady obligations narrowly, quite often the defendant never even discovers that the prosecution failed to fulfill Brady obligations. In that scenario, the defense never even had a fighting chance.
You make it sound as though the decision to disclose or not disclose is left up to the prosecution, and if it is ultimately discovered (and often it is not) that the prosecution failed to disclose material covered by Brady, there is no harm because it is a simple instance of the Judge disagreeing with the prosecutor. That is the epitome of what I meant when I earlier referred to prosecutorial hubris.
City Of Chicago To Modernize Outdated Graft Programs
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to streamline unethical practices and boost illegal profiteering, Mayor Richard M. Daley announced sweeping new plans Monday to overhaul his city's "antiquated" system of graft.
According to Daley, Chicago's once-great fraudulent institutions have grown obsolete, and City Hall is no longer bilking taxpayers out of as much money as it once did.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/city-of-chicago-to-modernize-outdated-graft-progra,17140/
@11:46 said:
ReplyDelete"Prosecutors/police have an affirmative duty to hand over all exculpatory evidence. And if they dont, well, then the trial gets continued like it did here."
Are you even a lawyer? Maybe you're a cute blonde and/or minority female in the PD's office. Way to display your D-grade prowess. Now get back to Crim I, the break is over.
@1:26
ReplyDeleteI started in civil and discovery was my job. Large, document intensive cases and lots of motions to compel resulting from some parties withholding requested documents.
In criminal, the defense often does a request if they believe there is something not being given over that they have reason to believe is favorable to them. I am not in disagreement with you about things needing to be turned over. I turn it all over...every time, because I do not want such things to happen as just happened here. Sometimes, however, metro does not give it to the prosecution. Sometimes they hold back. That is problematic because they are still considered the government holding out even if the prosecution had nothing to do with it. All in all, giving it all up is the best way to avoid a mistrial. Makes me think Mitchell was unaware of these documents, and once found out argued their relevance in order to preserve his trial.
Intelligent minds would question the merits of the prosecutions case. How can you hold Mr. thomas accountable for contracts that were approved by the board? Why isn't the board on trial? Strange now that evidence has surfaced, the very people who the prosecution based its case on is now back tracking on their original statements.When the prosecution smoke clears, the judge should hold the whistle blowers in contempt and charge them with perjury and the DA should be disbarred and brought up on charges. This is a mere case of an over zealous prosecutor who has intentions on running for office.
ReplyDeleteall in all it's just another brick in the wall
ReplyDeleteWho really gives a shit about this case? I'd rather talk about Miley & Miley, fake boobs and which judge is "doable".
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of DA's....Tina Sedlock....HOT, HOT, HOT! And available?
ReplyDeleteWonder if Tina has ever had her asshole licked...
ReplyDelete