Tuesday, March 15, 2005 | 11:08 a.m.
At his sentencing Friday for stealing Ted Binion's silver fortune, an emotional Rick Tabish said he was anxious to move on with his life.
Tabish said he can't wait to get out of prison, return to Montana and leave behind the six-year courtroom battle over Binion's mysterious 1998 death.
"Closure is all I want," Tabish told District Judge Joseph Bonaventure in a packed courtroom. "I don't want to be in this court again."
There's a good chance that Tabish, who received an additional prison term of one to five years, indeed may never have to go back to Bonaventure's court.
But "closure?"
That's not not going to happen in the near future, and it may never happen the way Tabish would like it to happen.
The mystery over Binion's drug-related death now is expected to move to civil court, where the burden of proof is much less than in criminal court.
Believe it or not, there's already a civil judgment against Tabish and his criminal co-defendant, Sandy Murphy, on file in civil court -- though it hasn't been acted upon yet.
Back on Dec. 13, 2000, several months after Tabish and Murphy were first convicted of killing Binion and stealing his silver, District Judge Michael Cherry found both defendants civilly liable for Binion's death.
Cherry ordered a trial to determine how much in damages Tabish and Murphy would have to pay Binion's estate, which had filed a civil wrongful death lawsuit against the defendants.
Under Nevada law, Cherry ruled, the murder convictions automatically made Tabish and Murphy responsible for Binion's death in civil court.
The defendants appealed the ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court. And later, acting on a separate appeal in the criminal case, the high court overturned the murder and theft convictions and ordered a new trial.
That left Cherry's civil order in limbo. Both sides agreed to keep the matter on hold until the outcome of the retrial.
In November, however, a second jury acquitted Tabish and Murphy of killing Binion, but convicted them of stealing his silver.
With the murder convictions no longer hanging over the heads of Tabish and Murphy, Cherry's order likely will have to be rescinded.
To win a new civil judgment, the estate will have to present evidence in court linking Tabish and Murphy to Binion's death.
If history tells us anything, that's not an impossible task.
Look at the O.J. Simpson case. Simpson was acquitted nearly a decade ago of killing his wife, Nicole, and Ron Goldman, but later held responsible for both deaths following a civil trial.
All the Binion estate needs to do is introduce a preponderance of evidence that shows the involvement of Tabish and Murphy in Binion's demise. That's far less than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt prosecutors were held to in the criminal cases.
The problem for Tabish and Murphy is that, despite their murder acquittals, the mass of circumstantial evidence both prosecutors and the estate accumulated over the years isn't flattering to the defendants.
Even the second jury, which found Tabish and Murphy innocent of murder, concluded the duo at the very least exploited Binion's death. The scheme to steal Binion's silver was carried out less than 36 hours after he died.
The big question, however, is whether Binion's estate wants his death explored in a well-publicized courtroom setting for a third time.
On Monday estate lawyer Bruce Judd couldn't tell me whether the estate, run by Binion's brother, Jack, has the resolve to keep up the fight.
Both sides are waiting for guidance from the Supreme Court before deciding their next move, Judd said.
Judd, however, was clear on one thing:
The estate's idea of "closure" in Ted Binion's death isn't what Tabish envisioned at his sentencing on Friday.
archive
