Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twittercourts:
Controversy erupts over prosecutors paying witnesses for interviews
Friday, Feb. 13, 2009 | 4:54 p.m.
Beyond the Sun
A controversy is building at the Clark County courthouse over the district attorney’s office's longstanding practice of paying witnesses for interviews prior to trials.
Several veteran defense lawyers say they were unaware of the practice and believe it could be illegal or, at the very least, unethical. The Clark County Public Defender’s office and the Nevada ACLU are trying to sort out what the implications may be for prior cases in which the payments were not disclosed.
The payments came to light when it was revealed that a witness met with prosecutors for a “pretrial conference” prior to the trial of an attempted robbery and kidnapping with deadly weapon case. The witness was paid $25 for coming to the meeting, plus another $25 for transportation.
Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn said that in his 16 years as a lawyer in the valley, this was the first time he had heard that prosecutors had been paying witnesses for pre-trial interviews.
Dayvid Figler and Dan Bunin, the defense attorneys representing the defendant (whom the jury found not guilty Thursday) also had never heard of the interview payment practice. And neither have any of their defense attorney friends, or the Nevada ACLU.
The fact that this witness — a 22-year-old woman with a record of prostitution and drug arrests — says she used the $50 to purchase crack cocaine immediately after the meeting with the prosecutor was just icing on the outrage cake for the defense lawyers.
Nevada law does allow attorneys to pay witnesses $25 for testifying during trial — in a courtroom, on the record, with attorneys from either side present. The district attorney’s office has argued that the same law that allows for the trial testimony payments also allows for the pretrial conference payments. But people like Kohn and Figler disagree. And last week, after an employee of the district attorney’s office, who was called to testify during the robbery trial, offered up that same Nevada Revised Statute as evidence the pretrial payments were legally legit, District Judge Michael Villani instructed the jury that the citation in question did not apply to pretrial payments.
Even so, District Attorney David Roger said Friday that his office believes that pre-trial payments to witnesses who have been subpoenaed for trial “is a logical extension of the statute.” He added that Clark County prosecutors have been doing it for at least 22 years and there’s never been anything secret about it.
“I would bet dollars to donuts that the defense does the same thing,” Roger said.
So what’s so bad about giving a witness money to come to a meeting? Critics of the practice say they have two main concerns: 1. Is the money being used as an inducement, or might it sway a person to change their testimony, particularly if they’re called in for multiple meetings, resulting in the total amount of the payment adding up? 2. Why haven’t prosecutors been formally disclosing the payments?
After the crack addict let the cat out of the bag, an investigator for the district attorney's office was called to the stand to testify on Feb. 3 during the trial of Figler’s client.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the court transcript:
Deputy District Attorney: Is it customary for the District Attorney’s Office to set up what’s called a pretrial conference?
Investigator: Yes, it is.
Deputy District Attorney: What is a pretrial conference?
Investigator: A pretrial conference is a time when they can — the D.A.’s office and the witness get together and go over any previous testimony.
Later, the prosecutor asked, “Are there times that a witness is paid for their appearance at that pretrial conference or their expenses getting to and from the courthouse are paid?”
“All the time. Yes,” the investigator answered.
If this does happen “all the time,” critics wonder why they’re first learning of it. Moreover, if people are being paid prior to testifying, paid to come speak with one side of the court, then, Kohn says, it should “at least be an area for cross-examination.” The Nevada ACLU shares this concern.
“We are especially concerned about the failure to disclose, which we believe is a legal obligation,” said Gary Peck, Nevada ACLU executive director.
The controversy over these payments is new, and additional issues are being whispered about every day, as gossip makes the rounds at the Regional Justice Center. The newest concern is whether these payments — if they are, in fact, legally questionable — will have implications for cases already closed, or prisoners sitting behind bars.
What started with a banal robbery case, a boring meeting between an attorney and a crack addict, is starting to seem like much more.
Sun reporter Jeff German contributed to this story.
Discussion: 25 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
- Harry Reid’s hopes hitched to health care reform bill
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
- Notebook: The Shark and LJ circle
- CityCenter hotel welcomes new employees with gala
- Politicians waste no time spinning latest jobless numbers
- Forrest Griffin writes his own ending at UFC 106
- Willis makes big difference in UNLV’s 78-69 victory
Blogs
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (9 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
- 27 Fri
-
The Automatic Tour at The Square Apple
The Square Apple
-
Football specials at Diablo's
Diablos Cantina
-
Rhumbar presents Pink Sugar Mondays
The Mirage Hotel and Casino
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
This shows how low the DA's office has sunk. In addition to refusing to prosecute casino employees who commit crimes against brain-using patrons, despite many civil jury verdicts resulting from the actions of the casino goons, now the DA is paying lowlife witnesses on petty cases. It is time to clean house in the DA's office, starting with Mr. Roger himself.
-----------------------------------
Opinions and Commentary on the Gaming Industry: www.TheBearGrowls.com
Stunning...
Pull every case where this has happened for retrial.
Yes, force a re-trial on all these cases. How can this be "equal justice"?
Who will run against David Rogers in 2010? I hope someone with brains and ethics.
Law and Order acting like they are above Law and Order. Every attorney that has participated in paying witnesses should be disbarred.
50 bucks! I'll be there tomorrow. What case(s) do you want me to testify about? This will be a hole lot easier than selling plasma.
""I would bet dollars to donuts that the defense does the same thing," Roger said."
I'll take that bet Roger. You might want to look at the comments here (at least the ones above this one) which show that, regardless of politics, everyone thinks this is wrong.
Frankly, I find it stunning that the DA's office would consider the practice ethical on any level. It makes me wonder what other unethical practices are common to the DA and justified with faux logic.
A few years back, a family member was charged with sexual assault. Everytime, a prelim was set, one of the two "victims" would not show up and the other one was paid. By the time the third prelim date was set, one of the "victims" called in and said she couldn't show up because they had lied about the "assaults" because they wanted the "perp" arrested so their boyfriend could get in this apartment to get his marijuana. Long and short of it, the Washoe County DA spent thousands on travel for the one "victim" who had moved out of state. both were welfare flies. So, yeah, it happens. They pay "witnesses" to lie.
I plan to write a book about what happened.
I recall a trial where the witness for the prosecution wanted to change his story to the truth, but was afraid that when he checked out of his hotel, the prosecution wouldn't pay for it and so he testified to what he knew were lies.
That's justice Las Vegas style.
I agree with neiman1. They should all be disbarred.
Convicting criminals should entail some examination of what the truth really is, not just conviction at all costs. How many people in our prisons right now are actually innocent and doing time for someone else's crime.
How is the citizenry supposed to feel safe and protected when you can't really trust a guilty verdict?
There are several other corrupt policies in the DA's office that tax payers may want to know about:
1. DAs must prosecute at least 6 felony jury trials a year in order to get their raises. What if a prosecutor in good faith doesn't think he can convict? Doesn't matter! If you want that raise, prosecute them. This policy was at one time written in a memorandum in the DAs office, but ask for it now and you'll get nowhere.
2. The DA's union just negotiated a new contract. DAs can now have alcohol in their offices and drink during the lunch hour.
3. Cops who testify for the DAs get paid overtime. I know cops are busy, but if I as a defense attorney can't pay cops the same amount for testimony, it creates an unequal playing field.
It's time for David Roger to go. We need an ethical DA.
Cops get a minimum two hours of overtime (if off duty) for each court appearance. Doesn't matter who issues that subpoena, the DA of the defense.
If the defendants did what these prosecutors are doing it would be called by what it is: "criminal witness tampering."
It's clear from this article these prosecutors consider themselves to be above the law. Only We the People can put them back where they belong, and this forum is a good start.
And some of you want the AG's office -- the state's biggest prosecutor -- in charge??
It is uncanny to witness such sighted comments. You ladies & gentlemen are right on, only you haven't gone far enough. This happens at all levels of our justice system. What type payment is it to have one person testify against another person? One goes to prison--the other goes home. Do you not think that any testimony the DA wants to be voiced--isn't?
You can't trust that stunted runt Rogers, or any of his associates. They aren't seeking the truth--they are seeking convictions, therefore, a better career and then, to the DA's office, maybe becoming another Judge Mosley or Jackie Glass, then to governor or attorney general.
Many innocent persons have paved the road for political aspirations. Truth never had a thing to do with the convictions.
The real shame is the fact that very few people ever get together and make issues out of such horrible justice as Las Vegas, and the state of Nevada--doles out as fair play to its citizens.
Does anyone really think good thoughts of our political leaders who allow this treatment to continue. We elected them to protect us from evil. Hell, they are the evil ones!
Just don't fall prey to these parasites. They will bite and suck your blood.
Geezelouise! Right on! And, the rest of you guys, too. However, tell me how to right this stupidity and set some of the innocent victims free. The simple answer is to vote them out, but that takes years. Take care...
spartacusproject -- you're right on with this one
This kind of corruption is everywhere. For perspective I recommend you google Kennedy's "Whorehouse Theory of Law."
Captjack has the right idea. EVERY case needs to be re-tried.After all that is done. The enitre DA office needs to be fired.Talk about total mis-use of a public office. What a bunch of !@!$* .
Anything else hiding between those walls ?
Wow! 24 hours and not one soul approves! I do not honestly think I've seen a consensus here before.
I'm not sure what's more amazing, that, or the fact that so many of different political bents would see this the same way, and yet the DA's office somehow sees it differently.
I am encourged by what I read here. This is our state, we need to take it back and make it something to be proud of. Spartacus, Killerb, you both make some great points.
These jokers, especially Rogers and his crew of evil bandits have made a mockery of our justice system. Couple them with compliant judges and you have innocent people sitting in prison rotting for want of justice.
This is NOT what I voted for (disclaimer, I did not ever vote for Rogers - he has too much of the weasle in him for me to feel safe), but I sure haven't seen anyone with anything to offer run against him either. What a shame. It would be great to know that justice is fair and that you could trust the verdict.
Rogers has always acted like a grandstanding, pious king - though that it in and of itself doesn't warrant disbarment, it does make him self-righteous. If he thinks that this practice does not prejudice the kind of witness who would sell their mothers for a crack rock, he has zero concept of honorable justice. He must go.
Both defense and prosecution officers pay in the thousands and tens of thousands to experts witness to give their very bias understandings of "facts".
Below are other just a few of other programs in the nation that pay witness money. It is mainly just small funds to assist witnesses in transportation needs to get to the DA's office and back or to court and back.
Google:prosecution witness reimbursement programs
United States Federal Courts....I believe it is practiced in all districts.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nv/home/abou...
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/documents...
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/e-res...
Florida
http://sa18.state.fl.us/vicsvcs/witmngt....
Calif
http://www.alcoda.org/victimwitness
Idaho
http://www2.state.id.us/ag/victims/Infor...
http://www.co.ozaukee.wi.us/AnnualReport...
Seriously JFNANCE? First, if this is no big deal then why doesn't the Clark County DA reveal this info to the defense (payment to expert witnesses are always fair game for the jury to consider). Second, the links you give refer to compensating victims of crimes which is a different thing. Finally, there's a difference between small transportation fees and arbitrary amounts of CASH to people.
Bottom line....the defense DOESN't do it in Clark county and the DA does.
The monies paid by prosecutors are intented to reimburse witnesses for the loss wages and cost of gas / parking for showing up. Even at $25 or $50 most witnesses still lose money for showing up at a pre-trial meeting or a court hearing. So please get off the ACLU band wagon and lets get these crooks off of our streets and into the jails.
If the monies are paid to reimburse witnesses, then why isn't it paid through the county offices like jury duty pay?
The big problem here, beingfair, is that it isn't getting crooks off our streets and into jails. It is paying someone for their testimony and that is a situation ripe with opportunities for people to lie to get money. That creates a culture that makes it far to easy to convict someone who isn't a crook.
Wrongful Conviction, go ahead, say the words - it won't make you face pucker up and stay like that forever. It happens, and it is WRONG.
You're being silly, not being fair. If the prosecution can't "get these crooks off of our streets and into the jails," then they have a problem.
Let's try that again...
If the prosecution can't "get these crooks off of our streets and into the jails," WITHOUT PAYING WITNESSES, then they have a problem.
My brother was found guilty on a misdemeaner charge and sent to a prison for two years for violating a TPO. During his trial we provided evidence that the DA witness has lied on the stand. I was always told that this was purjury. But is is true here in nevada there is no justice. I know for a fact that their witness needed money and I am sure she was paid for her lies along with all her friends from the bar. Even with proof of liars my brother did not get a fair trial. Also I have never heard of anyone going to prison for a misdemeanor charge. I feel that the DA's office should be charged with bribing a witness and sent to prison.