Sun challenges sealed indictment

Bill Gang

Thursday, May 28, 1998 | 10:12 a.m.

A legal challenge attempting to open a secret court case resulting from a sealed indictment of four men was filed today by attorneys for the Las Vegas Sun.

The case was reported to have been dismissed last week by District Judge Donald Mosley after a closed door hearing, but because of the judge's confidentiality order, the attorneys involved were barred from talking.

The judge also refused to explain the case or his ruling or reveal the defendants, citing the sealed nature of the case.

Documents to intervene in the case, filed by attorney Ralph Denton, contends the "nondisclosure deprives the Las Vegas Sun of its right to exercise effectively the freedom of the press and deprives the public ... of information it has a right to receive."

Noting that the case apparently contains allegations of illegal gambling activities, Denton argued in court documents that indictments resulting from such cases "demand increased public scrutiny in Nevada where the highly regulated legal gaming industry is so vital to the fabric, structure and resources of this state."

The documents indicate one of the four indicted on April 30 is a "politically influential businessman" currently being considered for a government contract.

The Sun's lawyer stated that if there are reasons in the sealed court case why the man shouldn't be given the contract that should become known.

Conversely, if there are no such reasons, "then that also must be made known for the benefit of the public and public officials" because of early media coverage of the investigation that preceded the sealed indictment, court documents argue.

Mosley said last week's court hearing dealt with concerns by defense attorneys over "the indictment procedure" rather than the substance of the criminal charges alleged in the indictment.

That could indicate the issue involved the presentation of evidence to the grand jury and, perhaps, the failure of prosecutors to present evidence which would have favored the defendants, as required by law.

The remedy in such cases is for prosecutors to take the case back to a grand jury and seek a new indictment.

That conclusion is bolstered by the revelation that court motions were filed before the grand jury had deliberated and issued the indictment.

The case was prosecuted by the state attorney general's office rather than the Clark County district attorney's office because District Attorney Stewart Bell's son had been employed by a company run by one of the defendants.