Prosecutors see no conflict in DA’s link to Rudin

Kim Smith

Friday, Jan. 12, 2001 | 11:01 a.m.

Just because Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell represented Margaret Rudin in a divorce case 15 years ago doesn't mean other county prosecutors should be removed from the case.

According to court documents filed late Thursday by prosecutors, Bell's representation of Rudin is not a conflict of interest because Bell doesn't remember the case, nor could that case have any bearing on the current case.

"During 22 years in private practice, Mr. Bell handled tens of thousands of cases, including thousands of uncontested divorces and has no recollection whatsoever of the specific facts of that representation," Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Guymon wrote.

Rudin is scheduled to go to trial Feb. 26 in connection with the December 1994 shooting death of her husband, Ronald Rudin, 64.

Ronald Rudin's body was found decapitated and burned near Lake Mohave in January 1995. Prosecutors suspect Rudin killed her husband to gain access to his estate and because she was angry over a suspected affair.

Rudin's attorney, Michael Amador, told District Judge Joseph Bonaventure a few weeks ago of a potential problem because of Bell's involvement in the divorce case.

The documents filed Thursday were in response to his concerns.

The documents indicate Bell wasn't aware he had represented Rudin at one point because when he did her name was Margaret Krafve. Even now that he knows, he says he still doesn't remember the case.

In other developments, prosecutors filed this morning a formal request to be allowed to admit hearsay evidence.

The prosecutors want jurors to know that Ronald Rudin placed restrictions on the disposition of his trust in the event his death "was caused by violent means."

In addition, prosecutors hope to tell jurors that Rudin reportedly sent anonymous letters to the children of her husband's alleged lover, notifying them of the affair 11 days before Ronald Rudin disappeared.

The alleged lover, if allowed, would testify that Ronald Rudin told her the day before he disappeared that he intended to confront Rudin about the letters.

"These statements by (Ronald) Rudin were spoken in excitement and disbelief as to the content of the letters and as to the audacity of the defendant in sending them," Guymon wrote in his motion.

Guymon and fellow prosecutor Christopher Owens also want to admit into evidence Rudin's diaries and handwritten notes -- notes taken while she eavesdropped on her husband with the use of listening devices.

The next hearing in the Rudin case is scheduled for Jan. 17.