Walters’ attorneys argue for indictment to be tossed out

Kim Smith

Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2002 | 9:37 a.m.

Attorneys representing golf course developer Billy Walters and his associates provided Chief District Judge Mark Gibbons Tuesday a host of reasons why a four-year-old money laundering indictment against them should be tossed out.

At the top of Richard Wright, John Moran Jr. and JoNell Thomas' list are two other indictments that have already been thrown out of court.

Walters and three associates, Daniel Pray, James Hanley and John Tognino of New York, were indicted on money-laundering charges in April 1998, several months after authorities seized about $3 million in cash in lock boxes that belonged to Walters.

Authorities alleged the men unlawfully transferred proceeds from a massive sports betting operation throughout the country and overseas.

The April 1998 indictment was dismissed because of defects, prompting the Nevada attorney Ggneral's office to file an appeal with the state Supreme Court. Before the high court could rule on the appeal, the AG's office obtained a second indictment against the men.

The second indictment, too, was thrown out and again, the AG's office appealed. A third indictment was obtained before the high court could rule on the appeal.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's decision to toss out the second and third indictments. In the middle of the battles, however, the high court reinstated the first indictment.

Walters' attorneys argue that it would not be fair to use that indictment now.

In motions filed Tuesday, Wright, Moran and Thomas argue that prosecutors let the first indictment lay dormant for years because they knew it could be dismissed for the same reasons the first indictment was dismissed.

In fact, in dismissing the second indictment two years ago, Wright noted, even the Supreme Court said "the state did not thereafter seek to reinstate the first indictment, apparently because it raises the same concerns that prompted the district court to dismiss the second indictment."

Wright said he would have asked for the first indictment to be tossed out again months ago "had the defendants known the state secretly intended to pursue" it.

Thomas also noted that the third indictment was a superseding indictment, which nullifies the first and second indictment. Since it was dismissed, no indictment exists against Walters.

All three attorneys further argue that Walters' right to a speedy trial has been violated.

"The defendants have endured the emotional roller-coaster that the state has forced upon them," Thomas wrote in her motion. "Six years of litigation is enough."

" Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney General Gerald Gardner declined to comment in depth on the motions, saying he had not yet seen them. Gardner did say "the first indictment was improperly dismissed in the first place and we shouldn't have to suffer by having it precluded for all time."

Gardner has until Sept. 20 to respond to the motions in writing.

Gibbons will hear arguments on the motion Oct. 1.