Murphy, Tabish convictions defended in court briefs

Monday, Nov. 19, 2001 | 9:24 a.m.

Prosecutors have filed briefs with the Nevada Supreme Court defending the convictions of Sandy Murphy and Rick Tabish in the 1998 slaying of Ted Binion.

"The state offered overwhelming circumstantial evidence demonstrating that Ted Binion was murdered and that Murphy and Tabish were the culprits," Chief Deputy District Attorneys David Roger and David Wall wrote.

"When singled out and examined separately, as the appellants attempt to do, some of the state's evidence might appear coincidental and innocent. However, when viewed in its entirety, the existence of Murphy's and Tabish's criminal conduct is clear."

The prosecutors, in 179 pages of legal arguments, acknowledged that the trial was not "free of blemishes."

But they incorporated the words of presiding District Judge Joseph Bonaventure and the U.S. Supreme Court by saying: "A defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, but only a fair trial."

The prosecution papers were filed in response to appeal briefs defense lawyers submitted in July seeking to overturn the convictions of the two defendants. Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz is involved in Murphy's appeal and expects to participate in arguments before the Supreme Court early next year.

Murphy, who lived with Binion for three years, and Tabish, a Montana contractor who became her lover, were convicted May 19, 2000, of killing the wealthy gambling figure following a sensational seven-week trial.

Prosecutors contended Murphy and Tabish pumped the 55-year-old Binion with heroin and Xanax, then suffocated him at his 2408 Palomino Lane home on Sept. 17, 1998.

Murphy now is serving a minimum of 22 years in prison, and Tabish is spending at least 25 years behind bars.

In their appeal briefs, defense lawyers told the high court that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence to obtain the jury convictions.

They also attacked the prosecution's chief medical witnesses, who gave conflicting opinions of what led to Binion's death.

Clark County Medical Examiner Lary Simms, who performed the autopsy on Binion's body, testified that the former casino executive died of a forced heroin and Xanax overdose.

But well-known New York pathologist Michael Baden concluded Binion was the victim of suffocation.

Prosecutors should not have been allowed to present the two different theories of Binion's death to the jurors, defense lawyers argued in their briefs.

Roger and Wall, however, disputed that contention.

"It was not improper for Dr. Baden to testify regarding a cause of death that was different from the cause offered by Dr. Simms," they wrote. "Dr. Baden and Dr. Simms were in agreement that a homicide occurred."

Roger and Wall also defended the actions of Bonaventure and the 12 jurors, who came under attack in defense briefs this summer.

They said Bonaventure gave Murphy and Tabish "every advantage available" within the legal system and "scrupulously honored" their rights to a fair trial.

Both defendants should not be allowed to complain on appeal simply because they are dissatisfied with the results, the prosecutors said.

As for the jurors, Roger and Wall wrote: "The record demonstrates conclusively that the jurors performed their service in a selfless and honorable fashion."

The prosecutors said that any extraneous evidence the jurors saw, including the rare legal term depraved indifference, was "inconsequential" and did not affect the verdict.

Roger and Wall also rebutted defense claims that Murphy and Tabish should have been granted a new trial because prosecutors failed to turn over FBI reports disclosing a mob plot to kill Binion.

The prosecutors said they never received the reports from the FBI, but more important, the reports would have had no bearing on the defense.

"It is absurd to suggest that this information would be material to (the) defense," they wrote. "At all times, Tabish and Murphy contended that Ted Binion died as a result of suicide or of an accidental overdose. Consequently, the identification of alternative suspects was not an issue at trial."

Defense lawyers will have a chance to respond in writing to the prosecution briefs before the Supreme Court hears arguments next year.