Monday, Jan. 3, 2005 | 9:12 a.m.
Timing may prove to be everything when it comes to Las Vegas Councilwoman Janet Moncrief's future in politics.
On Thursday, District Judge Nancy Saitta ruled that there was enough "slight or marginal evidence" presented to the grand jury to support the charges that Moncrief filed false campaign finance reports, but Moncrief's lawyer still has an opportunity to get the charges dismissed before voters decide whether to kick Moncrief out of office.
Saitta left that possibility open by ordering an evidentiary hearing to consider Moncrief's lawyer's arguments that the rookie office-holder was a victim of selective prosecution.
The hearing to determine why prosecutors chose to charge Moncrief but not others who had faced similar allegations in the past will be scheduled within the next 30 days.
Moncrief is to face a recall election on Jan. 25, and she has said that the charges against her are her opponents' "big issue."
After her three and a half hours in court Thursday morning, Moncrief said she was "sad" because she "thought the charges would have been dismissed" that day. But, she added, she remained hopeful that the charges could still be dismissed at the evidentiary hearing.
Moncrief faces four counts of offering false instrument for filing or record and one count of statement made in declaration under penalty of perjury.
Prosecutors allege Moncrief did not report the value of work performed by teens who canvassed neighborhoods for her, the contributions and/or expenses of political operatives Steve Miller and Tony Dane, the in-kind contribution of the use of a van, and the cost of producing and distributing attack fliers.
If convicted, Moncrief faces one to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine on each of the four counts of filing false campaign expense reports, and from one to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine on the perjury charge.
Wright contends the indictment against Moncrief is "laughable." He said Moncrief didn't know she was supposed to file the contributions and/or expenses in question, saying in a case such as this "ignorance of the law is an excuse."
Wright argued that the charges against Moncrief should be dismissed because she was "improperly charged" due to a change to the Campaign Practices Act in 1997 by the state legislature.
He said prosecutors have never prosecuted anyone else for the crimes Moncrief allegedly committed even though "dozens" have been accused of the same acts.
"No one has been prosecuted from 1997 to 2003 for this purported criminal offense," he said. "Why do they prosecute Janet Moncrief when other more egregious offenders are dealt with civilly?"
Wright said the legislature "decriminalized" filing of false campaign report and instead made the act subject to a civil penalty.
"The filing of an allegedly false campaign report is not a crime in Nevada," Wright said. "The offense charged is not applicable."
Wright said by charging Moncrief with offering false instrument for filing or record the prosecution was essentially guilty of "subverting the intention of the legislature." He said neither he nor Hafen could find one case of where filing a false campaign report was prosecuted using offering false instrument for filing or record in any jurisdiction in the country.
"How in the world could they have gone forward and prosecuted her like this when it has never been done?" Wright asked.
Hafen argued although the Legislature did change how filing a false campaign report was to be treated, it did not prohibit prosecutors from filing criminal charges for the act under other statutes.
He said the "set of facts" in the case against Moncrief matched those required to charge her with offering false instrument for filing or record. Hafen said Moncrief could have been charged criminally and under civil penalty.
Hafen said to accept Wright's argument would be analogous to a situation where the legislature determined the crime of burglary was now a civil matter and because of the change prosecutors could not longer charge theft instead.
He said each and every case that comes before the attorney general's office is handled on "its own merit." The prosecutor said the case against Moncrief was conducted by criminal investigators at the attorney general's office, and based on their information the charges were filed.
Hafen acknowledged, however, that if Saitta was to rule Moncrief was the subject of selective prosecution "she could dismiss the indictment."
Saitta ultimately agreed with Hafen, saying Moncrief was charged in a manner permitted by prosecutorial discretion.
She also rejected Wright's arguments that the grand jury was improperly instructed as to the elements of the crimes alleged against Moncrief and that "instrument" as per statute doesn't include a campaign finance report.
Jennifer Knight, spokeswoman for the Citizens to Recall Janet Moncrief, a committee formed to handle the recall campaign, said Moncrief's day in court served as another example of her being unfit to represent Ward 1 on the City Council.
"The election is just one month away and we have an incumbent whose mind is not on her job, but on saving her skin," Knight said. "We obviously need someone who can spend their time representing the residents of Ward 1, not someone consumed with defending themselves against a five-count felony indictment."
Moncrief's opponents have also alleged that she has failed to block unwanted development from their neighborhood.
Vicki Quinn, an activist for the disabled, is set to be on the Jan. 25 ballot, and former Clark County School Board member Lois Tarkanian has said that she too plans to run against Moncrief in the recall election.
Tarkanian said she expects to turn in her nominating this week. The deadline for candidates to turn a nominating petition is Wednesday.
archive
