Rudin complains about jail treatment

Kim Smith

Thursday, Jan. 18, 2001 | 11:04 a.m.

A Las Vegas woman accused in the gruesome slaying of her husband six years ago is refusing to provide handwriting samples to prosecutors because she is upset by the jail's treatment of her and media accounts of her plight.

Margaret Rudin, 56, voiced her displeasure Wednesday evening after attorneys spent all day arguing over various motions in preparation for her Feb. 26 trial.

Prosecutors believe Rudin and an unknown accomplice shot Ronald Rudin, 64, to death on Dec. 18, 1994, decapitated him, placed his body in a trunk and set it on fire in the Lake Mead National Recreational Area.

Authorities allege Rudin not only wanted a portion of Ronald Rudin's multimillion-dollar estate, but she was enraged when she discovered he was having an affair.

District Judge Joseph Bonaventure ordered Rudin to provide DNA and handwriting samples to prosecutors last month. However, Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Guymon informed Bonaventure that Rudin refused to provide the handwriting samples.

Rudin, who spoke to Bonaventure against the advice of her attorney, Michael Amador, said she is displeased with the conditions under which she has been living the past 10 months.

Not only is she locked in her cell 22 or 23 hours a day, but she is forced to wear shackles around her ankles during her court appearances, Rudin said. When she complains, her treatment gets worse.

In addition, Rudin alleged that prosecutors have been feeding "malicious" lies to newspaper reporters and have gone so far as to contact the National Enquirer.

"The closer we get to trial, the worse it gets, the more they go to the press," Rudin said.

Rudin said that because Amador doesn't want her to grant interviews, no one has been correcting the lies in the newspaper or stopping the prosecutors from providing them.

"If I don't take a stand, I think that's a reflection on me," Rudin said.

The prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves for doing what they are doing, particularly since they don't need the handwriting samples, Rudin said. They've got more samples than anyone else they've ever prosecuted or will ever prosecute, she said.

The diaries, books and notes the prosecutors are trying to tie to her are hers, Rudin said.

Bonaventure instructed Guymon to file a motion outlining what remedies he thinks should be taken to resolve the situation. He also informed Rudin that he already took up her concerns with jail officials last week and is preparing an order to outline his orders.

Most of the day, however, was spent on two other issues.

The attorneys argued over whether the Clark County District Attorney's Office should be removed from the case because District Attorney Stewart Bell represented Rudin at the beginning of her divorce from her fourth husband in 1986.

Bell took the stand and testified he handled more than 20,000 clients in his 20-plus years in private practice. He insisted he doesn't remember representing Rudin when she was Margaret Krafve.

After reading the case file, Bell said he doesn't see a conflict of interest.

The attorneys also argued over whether jurors should learn that Rudin pulled a gun on Ronald Rudin in 1988 and at least two shots were fired. Amador said the shots were fired during a struggle with the gun, Guymon believes Rudin tried to shoot Rudin after learning of an affair.

The similarities between the 1988 and the 1994 death of Rudin are so similar, Guymon said he believes jurors should learn of the prior incident.

In each case, Rudin pulled a handgun in Ronald Rudin's bedroom after learning of an affair, Guymon said.

Amador insisted the 1988 incident is quite dissimilar from the event prosecutors believe happened in 1994.

In 1988, the Rudins fought over the gun while Ronald Rudin was intoxicated and the gun went off accidentally, Amador said. In 1998, prosecutors are alleging Ronald Rudin was intentionally shot while he was sleeping.

Bonaventure took the attorneys' arguments under advisement and will issue rulings at a later date. He did issue some rulings Wednesday, however.

Bonaventure rejected Amador's theory that prosecutors and Ronald Rudin's trustees conspired against Rudin in both an earlier civil case and in the murder case. Amador had wanted the murder case dismissed based on this "outrageous government conduct."

Bonaventure also denied Amador's request to toss out whatever evidence prosecutors obtained by bugging Rudin's telephones. The judge agreed with prosecutors that they only resorted to the listening devices after trying all other means available to them to break the case.

Guymon and fellow prosecutor Chris Owens have said they intend to present a telephone answering machine message as evidence against Rudin. They have declined to tell the media what the message, which was obtained with the help of the listening devices, says.

Although Bonaventure said he won't throw out the message because he believes it was obtained legally, he said he would entertain any other arguments Amador may want to use to get the message tossed out.

The next hearing in the case is Feb. 1.