Murphy Gives Old Man Luck A Shove

The Binion murder predates WWL, so if you are new to the scene, you can catch up here. For those of you familiar with the story, hold on to your hats.

Not happy with simply getting away with murder, Sandy Murphy has gone ahead and sued the State for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

From the LV Sun:

In a lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court on Tuesday, Murphy claims she has been “rejected for numerous opportunities for employment for which she would otherwise be qualified” because she is considered a felon.

In the suit, she claims her lawyer failed to call a Nye County sheriff’s deputy who testified at a preliminary hearing on Aug. 23, 1999, to testify at trial — testimony she claims would have led jurors to a different verdict.

How exactly does Murphy's claim that her counsel screwed up have anything to do with the State maliciously prosecuting her? Are we missing something here?

(LV Sun)

Friday Open Thread

You want the open thread?!

You can't handle the open thread!

Sidebar: Hookin' Up The Help

Behind every great attorney is a great secretary administrative assistant. But what, in these down times, do you get for that special helper in your life when the holidays roll around?

Do you go with the scented candle, the bag-o-crackers, or the old standby: the gift card? If you do give a gift card, how much? Do you give anything at all? (First person to say their gift is "another year of employment" will be crowned WWL Douche-of-the-Day).

We want to know what all you big shots are giving to that special (hopefully) lady in your life. (No offense to you men, but really - if legal secretary is where you saw your career path heading, you should have made a U-turn a long time ago).

A Peek Under The Ticket-Busting Curtain

Las Vegas Business Press posted an interesting article featuring interviews with both Richard Harris and Adam Stokes (turn down the volume on your computer before you follow that Stokes link - trust us) regarding their respective ticket-busting endeavors.

According to the article, Justice Court collected $36 Million in ticket revenue in 2009. That doesn't include the revenue from Municipal Court, Henderson, North Las Vegas, etc. If you've ever wondered why we have so many ticket-busting firms - there's your answer.

Both attorneys were asked how they go about negotiating tickets for clients. Harris seems to take the more-citations-is-better approach:

"Many of these violations are in packages," Harris said. "Some motorists could be hit with several citations. They could include improper lane change, no insurance, signals -- I remember one client had seven. When we have this many, we can negotiate, and we do a good job."

Stokes, on the other hand, gave a very Stokesian answer:

"I'll go (before the judge) with a stack of 500 tickets and try to get the best deal I can for my clients," Stokes said. "If I can't, then I'll ask the judge to set all 500 cases for trial."

Riiiiiiiiight. Then the judge schedules him to return for a calendar call on April 1, 2035. This is why you never want to be in line behind Stokes on Attorney Day.

Although he refused to be interviewed, LVBP also has some interesting information about Kirk Hemlick, the owner of Ticket Terminators (you know - big cop, pink building ... "You don't want to see me in court!"). Perhaps the most interesting thing about Hemlick (to us, anyway) is that he is not an attorney.

But wait, you say, how can Hemlick own a ticket-busting firm and share profits with the attorneys he "employs" without possessing a bar number? We have no clue. If any of you know how Hemlick has managed to structure his business around NRPC 5.4, please enlighten us in the comments.

(Las Vegas Business Press)

Baking Delicious Cookies Is Not A Bad Act

As Nevada residents, there are various things you have to learn to live with. Water restrictions, only having two seasons, and a sever severe lack of published case law due to the absence of an intermediate appellate court, to name a few. As for that last one, the opinions we do get are often sometimes unclear. This week's example came to us via email from a helpful tipster.

The Nevada Supreme Court recently issued two advance opinions: Fields v. State (1) and Fields v. State (2).

Both cases involved the same issue: Should prior bad acts be admitted as relevant to show a common plan or scheme. One case was against the husband, John Vernon Fields, and was decided en banc by the entire Court. The other case was against the wife, Linda Fields, and was decided by a 3 judge panel of Cherry, Saitta and Gibbons.

The bad acts in both cases were the same, the acts were committed by the couple. In the case against the wife, the three judge panel decided that the bad acts should not be admitted. In the case against the husband, the en banc court decided that the acts should be admitted. So we have conflicting decisions by the Supreme Court. Oh, and the fact that both cases are captioned "Fields v. State" should make for some confusing criminal briefs in the future.

But here's the interesting part: Judges Cherry and Saitta dissented from the en banc decision because they believed the bad acts should not be admitted, which conformed to their decision in the wife's case. Judge Gibbons, however, did not dissent and agreed with the majority that the bad acts should be admitted ... which is contrary to his decision in the wife's case.

Any of you criminal-types or appellate mavens care to explain these seemingly conflicting decisions? What about Gibbons apparent flip-flop? And, perhaps more importantly, what is the current state of the admissibility of bad acts to show a common plan or scheme in Nevada?

(Thanks, Tipster!)

Friday Open Thread

Deck the halls with boughs of open thread.

Fa la la la la, past threads here.

Welcome Back, Friend

Oh Liz, how we've missed you!

In what hopefully closes out the final chapter in this embarrassment of a story, the RJ is reporting that Halverson's former JEA, Ileen Spoor, won a $50,000 judgment on Tuesday in the defamation case she filed against the calorically-challenged former judge.

Halverson has been representing herself since January after two law firms she hired were allowed to withdraw as counsel because they weren't being paid. Her most recent action was to file a Notice of Appeal ... prior to the entry of judgment. We know ... shocking that she isn't familiar with procedural court rules.

The RJ reports that it is "unclear whether Halverson will pay the award." We'd love to see Spoor slap a lien on that souped-up scooter.

(LVRJ; Above The Law)