Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 20, 2006 15:21:26 GMT -5
3 Changes Ordered in Oversight of Nevada Judges----The state's chief
justice announces immediate actions to curb conflicts of interest and
other improprieties raised in reports by The Times.
The chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court has ordered 3 steps to
heighten scrutiny and supervision of the state's judges, who have become
the target of a reform effort amid allegations of impropriety and cronyism
in the courtroom and on the campaign trail.
The changes were disclosed in a 4-page statement sent to the Los Angeles
Times by Chief Justice Robert E. Rose, Nevada's former lieutenant governor
and an important figure in the state's political landscape.
They come in the wake of a Times investigation into the state's judiciary,
especially the Las Vegas bench. The investigation determined, among other
things, that Nevada judges have awarded millions of dollars in judgments
in recent years without disclosing that the money was awarded to friends,
business partners and former clients - even people to whom the judges owed
money.
The Times' stories had already triggered a broader effort designed to
separate Nevada judges from campaign contributors and reduce the frequency
of costly elections that judges face under current state law.
Rose's statement outlined 3 additional steps toward reform that will be
set in motion immediately.
First, the Supreme Court will implement a formal process to evaluate the
performance of the state's senior judges - on-call jurists who are paid by
the hour, have typically retired from the bench and are farmed out to
assist with a growing workload in the court system.
Although many had distinguished careers before their retirement, they are
seen as vulnerable to allegations of impropriety because they are not
accountable to voters and serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court
indefinitely.
The Times investigation found, for instance, that one senior judge ruled
repeatedly in favor of a casino corporation in which he held more than
10,000 shares, and that another had presided over at least 16 cases
involving participants in his real estate deals.
One senior judge scrutinized in the Times' stories, Joseph S. Pavlikowski,
has resigned from the position in the wake of the reports, Rose said.
The chief justice said Nevada would benefit from a "more comprehensive and
uniform procedure to evaluate the performance of our senior judges."
Starting in November, evaluation forms will be sent to lawyers, jurors and
parties in cases that are heard by senior judges, and the district courts
that request the judges' services.
Second, Rose said, senior judges will be subjected in some cases to
peremptory challenge - the right of a party in a court case to seek a
judge's removal. Currently, senior judges are immune from such challenges,
unlike regular judges.
In the past, Rose said, senior judges were not exposed to challenges
because they were often pressed into service at the last moment; they are
often called to preside over a case when another judge is sick or
otherwise absent.
Now, peremptory challenges will be allowed when a senior judge is
appointed more than 14 days prior to a scheduled court date, Rose said.
Third, Rose said, the Supreme Court will issue a communique to all of the
state's district court judges reminding them of their ethical obligation
to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The Times investigation detailed a host of instances in which judges
presided over cases in which their impartiality could have been called
into question.
"Detailed facts were not provided to support many of the accusations,"
Rose wrote. "But, suffice it to say, there were instances where the
disclosure of an interest or facts that may bear upon the case should have
been made by the judge."
According to federal and state judicial canons, judges should withdraw
from cases when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. But the
state does not require judges to disclose when their campaign contributors
appear before them. And court observers say some judges have been reticent
in volunteering information that might call their impartiality into
question.
Rose said he would remind judges that they should "err on the side of
disclosure."
"We believe that judges often equate a disqualifying interest with an
interest they are required to disclose," Rose wrote. "Such is not the
case. A judge must disqualify himself or herself from any case where his
or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Rose sent his statement to The Times on Monday night. He did not return
phone calls on Tuesday seeking additional comment.
The state's top judge said he found insufficient grounds to act against
three senior judges whose conduct was called into question by The Times
investigation, citing inadequate information or lack of jurisdiction.
The Times reported that Pavlikowski, the senior judge who recently
resigned, officiated at the wedding of Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal in 1969,
when Rosenthal was known as a frontman for the Chicago mob. Pavlikowski
then accepted a discounted wedding reception for his daughter at a casino
where Rosenthal was a top executive. The judge later ruled in favor of
Rosenthal in 3 cases.
But because Pavlikowski resigned his judgeship, "apparently to pursue
other career endeavors," Rose wrote, "it is unnecessary to review the
allegations against him."
Rose noted that whereas the state Supreme Court appoints senior judges and
can withdraw their commission, the court's jurisdiction over the judges is
limited. The responsibility of investigating complaints made by the public
against senior judges falls in most cases to the state's Commission on
Judicial Discipline.
The commission's general counsel and executive director, David F.
Sarnowski, said Tuesday that he was prohibited from disclosing whether any
complaints have been lodged against the judges. But the commission has not
publicly announced any action against the judges - James A. Brennan,
Stephen L. Huffaker and Pavlikowski.
Washoe County District Judge Brent Adams, a leading proponent of judicial
reform in Nevada, commended Rose in an interview Tuesday for issuing a
reminder that judges are obligated to reveal conflicts of interest.
But he noted that it was the Supreme Court that determined that Nevada
judges are not required to disclose when a party in a case has contributed
to their election campaign. He said the Supreme Court could have a more
lasting effect on the judiciary by revisiting that "terrible decision."
"It's encouraging to be reminded that we can always behave above the
minimum standard," he said. "But it would be marvelous if the Nevada
Supreme Court, for once, would raise the standard."
(source: Los Angeles Times)
justice announces immediate actions to curb conflicts of interest and
other improprieties raised in reports by The Times.
The chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court has ordered 3 steps to
heighten scrutiny and supervision of the state's judges, who have become
the target of a reform effort amid allegations of impropriety and cronyism
in the courtroom and on the campaign trail.
The changes were disclosed in a 4-page statement sent to the Los Angeles
Times by Chief Justice Robert E. Rose, Nevada's former lieutenant governor
and an important figure in the state's political landscape.
They come in the wake of a Times investigation into the state's judiciary,
especially the Las Vegas bench. The investigation determined, among other
things, that Nevada judges have awarded millions of dollars in judgments
in recent years without disclosing that the money was awarded to friends,
business partners and former clients - even people to whom the judges owed
money.
The Times' stories had already triggered a broader effort designed to
separate Nevada judges from campaign contributors and reduce the frequency
of costly elections that judges face under current state law.
Rose's statement outlined 3 additional steps toward reform that will be
set in motion immediately.
First, the Supreme Court will implement a formal process to evaluate the
performance of the state's senior judges - on-call jurists who are paid by
the hour, have typically retired from the bench and are farmed out to
assist with a growing workload in the court system.
Although many had distinguished careers before their retirement, they are
seen as vulnerable to allegations of impropriety because they are not
accountable to voters and serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court
indefinitely.
The Times investigation found, for instance, that one senior judge ruled
repeatedly in favor of a casino corporation in which he held more than
10,000 shares, and that another had presided over at least 16 cases
involving participants in his real estate deals.
One senior judge scrutinized in the Times' stories, Joseph S. Pavlikowski,
has resigned from the position in the wake of the reports, Rose said.
The chief justice said Nevada would benefit from a "more comprehensive and
uniform procedure to evaluate the performance of our senior judges."
Starting in November, evaluation forms will be sent to lawyers, jurors and
parties in cases that are heard by senior judges, and the district courts
that request the judges' services.
Second, Rose said, senior judges will be subjected in some cases to
peremptory challenge - the right of a party in a court case to seek a
judge's removal. Currently, senior judges are immune from such challenges,
unlike regular judges.
In the past, Rose said, senior judges were not exposed to challenges
because they were often pressed into service at the last moment; they are
often called to preside over a case when another judge is sick or
otherwise absent.
Now, peremptory challenges will be allowed when a senior judge is
appointed more than 14 days prior to a scheduled court date, Rose said.
Third, Rose said, the Supreme Court will issue a communique to all of the
state's district court judges reminding them of their ethical obligation
to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The Times investigation detailed a host of instances in which judges
presided over cases in which their impartiality could have been called
into question.
"Detailed facts were not provided to support many of the accusations,"
Rose wrote. "But, suffice it to say, there were instances where the
disclosure of an interest or facts that may bear upon the case should have
been made by the judge."
According to federal and state judicial canons, judges should withdraw
from cases when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. But the
state does not require judges to disclose when their campaign contributors
appear before them. And court observers say some judges have been reticent
in volunteering information that might call their impartiality into
question.
Rose said he would remind judges that they should "err on the side of
disclosure."
"We believe that judges often equate a disqualifying interest with an
interest they are required to disclose," Rose wrote. "Such is not the
case. A judge must disqualify himself or herself from any case where his
or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Rose sent his statement to The Times on Monday night. He did not return
phone calls on Tuesday seeking additional comment.
The state's top judge said he found insufficient grounds to act against
three senior judges whose conduct was called into question by The Times
investigation, citing inadequate information or lack of jurisdiction.
The Times reported that Pavlikowski, the senior judge who recently
resigned, officiated at the wedding of Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal in 1969,
when Rosenthal was known as a frontman for the Chicago mob. Pavlikowski
then accepted a discounted wedding reception for his daughter at a casino
where Rosenthal was a top executive. The judge later ruled in favor of
Rosenthal in 3 cases.
But because Pavlikowski resigned his judgeship, "apparently to pursue
other career endeavors," Rose wrote, "it is unnecessary to review the
allegations against him."
Rose noted that whereas the state Supreme Court appoints senior judges and
can withdraw their commission, the court's jurisdiction over the judges is
limited. The responsibility of investigating complaints made by the public
against senior judges falls in most cases to the state's Commission on
Judicial Discipline.
The commission's general counsel and executive director, David F.
Sarnowski, said Tuesday that he was prohibited from disclosing whether any
complaints have been lodged against the judges. But the commission has not
publicly announced any action against the judges - James A. Brennan,
Stephen L. Huffaker and Pavlikowski.
Washoe County District Judge Brent Adams, a leading proponent of judicial
reform in Nevada, commended Rose in an interview Tuesday for issuing a
reminder that judges are obligated to reveal conflicts of interest.
But he noted that it was the Supreme Court that determined that Nevada
judges are not required to disclose when a party in a case has contributed
to their election campaign. He said the Supreme Court could have a more
lasting effect on the judiciary by revisiting that "terrible decision."
"It's encouraging to be reminded that we can always behave above the
minimum standard," he said. "But it would be marvelous if the Nevada
Supreme Court, for once, would raise the standard."
(source: Los Angeles Times)