Judge withholds ruling on Rudin dismissal

Kim Smith

Friday, Feb. 23, 2001 | 11:39 a.m.

District Judge Joseph Bonaventure made it clear Thursday that he believes a defense attorney's allegations of misconduct against a prosecutor in the Margaret Rudin case are without merit.

Bonaventure, however, refrained from making his formal ruling until Monday morning.

On Tuesday, defense attorney Michael Amador filed three motions seeking the dismissal of murder charges against Rudin. He alleged that Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Guymon lied to him as well as to Bonaventure and the media about a piece of evidence and kept information about a $25,000 reward to himself.

At the very most, Amador wanted the charges against Rudin dismissed and Guymon to resign from his position. At the least, Amador wanted some pieces of evidence tossed out of the case. Jury selection in the Rudin case is expected to begin Monday. The 56-year-old and an unknown accomplice are suspected of shooting Ronald Rudin in the head multiple times, decapitating him and burning his remains in the Lake Mead National Recreational Area.

Ronald Rudin's remains were found in January 1995, one month after he was reported missing.

Amador alleged that Guymon told him, Bonaventure and a reporter from the Las Vegas Review-Journal that a wallet found in Margaret Rudin's belongings in December was the wallet Ronald Rudin was using at the time of his death.

Guymon planted a story about the wallet and the driver's license in the media to cast his client in a negative light, Amador complained.

Guymon also didn't tell him until just recently that a crucial witness in the case had been promised a $25,000 reward for his cooperation in the case, Amador said. Any information obtained as a result of that witness should therefore be thrown out because it is suspect, he said.

Bonaventure expressed his views before even giving Guymon and fellow prosecutor Chris Owens a chance to express their side.

Bonaventure pointed out that the Review-Journal article Amador referred to doesn't say the wallet was current.

In addition, court transcripts don't back up his allegations, either, Bonaventure told Amador.

As for the reward, Bonaventure told Amador that if he wants to question the witness about the reward or cast doubt on his testimony, he will get the opportunity to do so during cross-examination at trial.

Several times throughout the hearing, Bonaventure said he was deeply troubled that Amador would make such allegations against a well-respected attorney.

"Resign from the district attorney's office?" Bonaventure said. "If that's not outrageous, I don't know what is."

When given the opportunity to make the record clear for the Nevada Supreme Court in the event of an appeal, Owens said he believes Bonaventure's observations are true.

Amador wants sanctions taken against Guymon when it is Amador that needs to be sanctioned, Owens said.

Amador's allegations are "garbage," Owens said.

As for the reward, Guymon said he never told Amador the witness was going to get a reward. The witness has not received a reward, nor has he been promised one.

Amador claims he didn't know a reward was being offered by Ronald Rudin's trustees, but Guymon said he gave him dozens of newspapers articles in December that mentioned a reward. The articles date as far back as 1995.

Moreover, Margaret Rudin's own diaries and logs refer to what she calls "bribes," Guymon said.

When Amador noted that Owens' written response to his allegations about the reward did not include a sworn written affidavit, Owens' asked to be sworn in.