Censure Too Harsh
The Nevada Supreme Court rejected a proposed censure of a Las Vegas municipal judge as unduly harsh and directed that the judge write a letter of apology and attend (at his own expense) a class in judicial ethics. The misconduct involved a defendant who was unable to appear for a court proceeding and sent his girlfriend in his stead. The following colloquy took place:
THE CLERK: The City of Las Vegas Municipal Court is now insession. The Honorable George Assad presiding. Please be seated.
THE COURT: City versus Joshua Madera. Okay. Where isJoshua?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He’s actually—today he started hisfirst day at work. That’s why he’s not here today. He’s requesting if he canjust have 30 days to make that payment in full.
THE COURT: Well, the problem is he threatened someone withbodily harm, essentially.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When was this, your Honor?
THE COURT: It was Friday. He threatened her with bodilyharm, one of the court clerks.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I—
THE COURT: So unless you want to get him down here realquick, we’re going to have to lock you up until he gets here. I think he knewthat, so that’s why he sent you here in his place.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I—I talked to the clerk on Friday,but I—
THE COURT: Who did you talk to?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Some lady. She said that I could comeinto court for him. Didn’t—she didn’t say anything about him threatening aclerk.
THE COURT: And you don’t know who you talked to?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. I don’t recall, your Honor. Youknow what? Maybe I wrote it on the paper. I’ve got Debbie, extension [ ].
THE COURT: Well Debbie’s here and she says he didn’t talkto her. So—
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Maybe he (indiscernible)—
THE COURT: I mean, there might be another Debbie.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have no idea.
THE COURT: Is there another Debbie down here?
THE CLERK: (Indiscernible).
THE COURT: All right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have no idea.
THE COURT: All right. Well, you’re going to have to go withmy marshal in the back and make a phone call.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well—
THE COURT: Tell him you’re going to jail if he doesn’t gethis butt down here—
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: —real fast.
Then:
Chrzanowski [the girlfriend and unidentified speaker] followedthe marshal, Raul Saavedra, to a back room, which included a desk and a phone,some seating, and two holding cells. Chrzanowski called Madera, who could notcome at that time. Saavedra handcuffed Chrzanowski and placed her in thewomen’s holding cell. Testimony at the Commission hearing indicated that this backroom was quite busy during hearings, as it was used for telephone calls bydefendants and others, for plea negotiations, and for arranging alternativesentencing such as work programs and house arrest. The record further reflectsthat the courtroom itself was very busy, even while the court session wastaking place.
The court found that the testimony of an expert on behalf of the judge was properly rejected:
Here, ProfessorStempel’s affidavit, which was attached to Judge Assad’s prehearing motion andsets forth his proposed testimony, purported to evaluate the credibility ofwitnesses that had yet to testify (although they had given statements duringthe Commission’s investigation); determined based on the March 31, 2003, courtsession’s audiotape that Chrzanowski could not have been handcuffed in courtbecause no “click” could be heard on the tape; weighed “evidence” that had notyet been admitted; and discussed issues that were irrelevant to those properly beforethe Commission, such as whether Judge Assad would have had jurisdiction to holdChrzanowski in contempt, whether she was engaged in the unauthorized practiceof law by appearing on Madera’s behalf, and the dismissal of Chrzanowski’scivil lawsuit. Credibility determinations and weighing the evidence are tasksreserved to the Commission, and expert testimony on these issues would not haveassisted the Commission to understand the evidence or resolve a disputed fact. Also, as noted above, much of the affidavit concerned matters that wereirrelevant to the issues before the Commission, and thus it was not admissible. Accordingly, we conclude that the Commission did not abuse its discretion inrefusing to admit Professor Stempel’s proposed expert testimony.
(Mike Frisch)