MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 7, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 7, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Greg Brower (Excused)
Ms. Barbara Buckley (Excused)
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, Las Vegas, NV
David Gibson, Clark County, Nevada Legislative Team, NACO Office, Carson City, NV
Karen Kavanau, Director and State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Carson City, NV
Ron Titus, Chief Information Officer, Nevada Judicial Branch, Administrative Office of the Courts, Carson City, NV
Edward Dannan, Justice of the Peace, Reno Justice Court, Reno, NV
Michael R. Griffin, First Judicial District, Department 1, Carson City, NV
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and asked the secretary to call the roll. Chairman Anderson stated that a quorum was present and continued with his opening remarks. He made his introduction of Mr. Ben Graham of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association who had been asked to make a presentation on “Criminal Law, Jurisdiction and Procedure” (Exhibit C-1). Mr. Graham taught a course at the Community College in southern Nevada relative to jurisprudence and the criminal justice program. Mr. Graham was joined by David Gibson, Chief Deputy Public Defender from Clark County.
Mr. Graham stated it was a privilege to be present because the committee was covering areas that he had been working on since 1968 and which had been taught at the university and college levels since 1979. During the legislative session the committee would hear from Mr. Gibson; J.J. Jackson, representing criminal defense issues; John Morrow, Public Defender from Washoe County; and his colleague Kathleen O’Learly. He mentioned that Donelle Thomas and Robert Langford from Clark County Defense Bar were in the audience.
Mr. Graham continued that the whole system of the criminal justice process needed to be viewed as set forth by the Bill of Rights (Exhibit C-1). It should be the obligation of the law enforcement community, as well as the prosecution and defense, to see that the Bill of Rights, guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution and by the Nevada Constitution, were respected and carried out non-prejudicially and with equal protection to everyone.
Mr. Graham went on to say that if a person wanted to see what the law was, or should be, that person should run for the legislature. If you wanted to make the law, or determine guilt or innocence, a person must be part of the judicial branch. A judge’s role was to determine guilt and innocence, but the most important function was determining whether the legislative branch enacted the laws clearly and concisely so that ordinary citizens would know what to do. Police officers should also be aware of the laws that need to be enforced. If there was a violation present, the most significant thing the law enforcement community, or a citizen, could do would be to make an arrest.
Mr. Graham went over his handout (Exhibit C-1) with definitions, county designations, jurisdictions, how judges were paid, and references to various chapters and sections of the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS). The following topics were presented: Arrests, Courts, and Classification of Crimes. The availability of attorneys and juries in the various types of courts was noted. A new classification of habitual criminal, the Nevada version of “three strikes,” added for repeat offenders, was explained. Preliminary examinations, probable cause, grand jury indictment and burden of proof were defined. A brief description of the Juvenile Court ended Mr. Graham’s presentation.
Mr. Graham asked that Mr. Gibson continue the presentation. There were no objections from Chairman Anderson who asked that questions from the committee members be held until after Mr. Gibson spoke.
Mr. Gibson provided a flow chart titled “Felony Case Flow: Clark County, Nevada” (Exhibit D) in a slightly different form than that included in Exhibit C-1. Mr. Gibson expressed his willingness to work with the committee during the session and to contribute whatever he could regarding bills that would be presented before the committee.
Chairman Anderson entertained questions regarding the presentation by Mr. Graham.
Assemblyman Carpenter mentioned that a bill draft request (BDR) would be forthcoming requesting a study/examination of misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. It was Mr. Carpenter’s belief that a study was needed and would be helpful to the courts.
Assemblyman Nolan said he had heard the presentation three times and raised a question regarding members of a grand jury: the qualifications of the jurors, how they would be selected, and how they would convene.
Mr. Graham explained that statutory provisions provided for a grand jury to be called by district court judges and were created out of a jury pool drawn at random. A panel of approximately 100 people would be created to draw out the 17 people required to serve for a year. Once in a great while a grand jury was formed to investigate certain things, but it was usually an indicting grand jury that received presentations from the district attorney’s office.
Vice Chairman Manendo recalled that he had been summoned for jury duty prior to this session and related the length of time that jurors had to wait to be selected.
Mr. Graham stated that each week a group of people were summoned to be available for whatever trials would happen that week. Of the 20,000 felonies a year, only 300 or less go to trial. Jurors could be called to the courtroom and by the time they appeared a settlement might have already been reached. In some jurisdictions, jurors may be called to sit on a panel for three to six months. Mr. Graham concluded that a day or two is not uncommon based on how the process works.
Assemblywoman Angle mentioned that BDRs have been requested that relate to the death penalty and asked how difficult it was to bring a death penalty case, what the prerequisites were in Nevada, and how a declaration of insanity combined with the death penalty.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the purpose of Mr. Graham’s presentation was to give a general flow of the procedural elements. Both issues would be taken up in greater detail when specific pieces of legislation went before the committee.
Mr. Graham stated that varied opinions existed regarding the death penalty and insanity issues. He offered to discuss the issues with Mrs. Angle in her office.
To conclude the presentation Mr. Graham called attention to two publications (Exhibit C-2 and C-3) that were provided to the committee as part of his presentation. The first was “Miranda & Other 5th Amendment Issues,” and the second was “The Law of Search & Seizure For Lawyers,” both of which were used by police officers, many judges, and the defense bar in an effort to summarize the Miranda issues and search and seizure issues.
Chairman Anderson announced the second presentation today would be from the Administrative Offices of the Court System. He invited Ms. Karen Kavanau and Judge Edward Dannan to approach the witness table.
Karen Kavanau, Director and State Court Administrator of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), read from a prepared statement (Exhibit E-1) and made references to her exhibit titled “Administrative Office of the Courts – Overview of Nevada’s Judicial Branch” (Exhibit E-2). Illustration 1 (Exhibit E-2) outlined the four courts in Nevada…Municipal Courts, Justice Courts, District and Family Courts, and the Supreme Court. Illustration 2 (Exhibit E-2) outlined the Nevada Supreme Court Budget Accounts and funding sources. Ms. Kavanau made reference to the Annual Report of the Nevada Judiciary (Exhibit E-3). Illustration 3 (Exhibit E-2) mapped the five Nevada Regional Judicial Councils. Illustration 4 (Exhibit E-2) provided information on specific composition and purpose of these councils as defined in Supreme Court Rule 8 Regional Judicial Councils and Rule 9 Judicial Council of the State of Nevada. Illustration 5 (Exhibit E-2) listed BDRs requested through the AOC. These bills originated from individual courts, judges’ associations, the State Judicial Council or the Supreme Court.
Chairman Anderson entertained questions from committee members for Ms. Kavanau. He also queried committee members regarding individual receipt of a copy of the Annual Report of the Nevada Judiciary (Exhibit E-3).
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Kavanau about the computer system; bringing it into alignment in order to have a uniform reporting system, and a central repository for statistical information. He asked where the courts were in the process of compliance.
Ms. Kavanau answered that the uniform system for judicial records was defined as the physical system that supported the collection and reporting of statistics. It was not one system; rather it encompassed 91 trial courts in the state. Each may or may not have their own system or may have consolidated with other courts. The challenge was to join them all together, making their software capable of reporting statistics to the legislature and the Supreme Court. Some courts are not automated, while some are automated but do not comply with the uniform system for judicial records. Ms. Kavanau pointed out that for a better explanation of the differences, Mr. Ron Titus was available in the audience to speak.
Ms. Kavanau introduced Mr. Ron Titus, Chief Information Officer for the Statewide Court System. Chairman Anderson acknowledged Mr. Titus and his most recent accomplishments.
Mr. Titus explained the process that was being used to assure that every court was reporting the same information. A scenario was presented to illustrate the quandary of uniform reporting – Three people rob a bank, they are arrested. How many cases would that be? Two answers were expected: (1) three cases because there were three defendants, and (2) one case because it was all one related incident. Then Mr. Titus was told that it depended on how many charges were made. It became apparent that it could be “garbage in, garbage out” -- there were no comparisons. Two years ago Mr. Titus began by defining what was to be reported. In the Annual Report (Exhibit E-3) criminal cases were defined as “defendants,” resulting in every court reporting three cases as related to the previous scenario. Now that it was standardized and there existed the “Data Dictionary” (Uniform System for Judiciary Record Data Dictionary), a staff person collected information and tried to assure that the courts were reporting information accurately.
Mr. Titus went on to say that the courts were trying to develop better case management systems and better case management practices, as well. There were two projects directly related to better case management systems: (1) Nevada Rural Court Systems involved 20 courts that have signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) signifying they would use the same system. It was expected that additional courts would join once the system was successfully implemented. It was anticipated that pilot courts would be ready late summer or early fall. (2) An effort was being made to coordinate with municipal courts and justice courts in the southern part of the state, Clark County, to choose a single system. Justice courts started a project over a year ago to define specifications, and the municipal courts had been encouraged to work together with the justice courts since they handled similar cases.
Chairman Anderson restated his question to include a few basic problems that have been evident over the last several years in terms of legislation that has been put forward, particularly the “3 strike” legislation -- how those people appeared before a judge and when they appeared in order to assure that there would be an accurate picture of where they would be in the prison system.
Also of interest were the DUI laws that affected a person with an older conviction (four to five years ago) that appeared in the justice court and the municipal court in two separate jurisdictions within a week or two. In the past that has resulted in judges not having the best information in order to make their decisions, which would then reflect poorly on the judges. In reality it was not the judge’s fault since he did not have the resources to have all the information.
Mr. Anderson continued, with instant communication available with the computer systems, why have only 50 percent (20 of 40) of the rural courts been participating?
Mr. Titus said that one of the issues has been that rural courts do not have any information technology staff. One option to solve that problem would be to host the system centrally at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). That would allow those courts, with “read only” rights, to see if the defendant had appeared someplace else.
Mr. Titus reported that a third project was going on that was called the “Multi-County Integrated Justice Information System” also referred to as the “Griffin Project” (because Judge Michael Griffin was the executive sponsor). This project involved four counties -- Carson City, Storey, Lyon and Churchill counties; district attorneys; all the courts – municipal, justice and district; and law enforcement. It would automate the process from arrest through trial, and eventually update the criminal history repository, and corrections to probation. Mr. Titus said it was a very exciting project that the AOC has been working on for close to two years.
Chairman Anderson stated one of the complaints heard in the past was about the difficulty of manual input of information into the system by small staffs. He said he expected Judge Dannan to address that issue.
Chairman Anderson entertained questions from the committee members.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked which courts in the rural areas were parts of the program? Where were the pilot courts?
Mr. Titus informed the committee that most of the courts in Carson City, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Pershing, Nye, Mineral, and Esmeralda counties were involved. Elko County was not involved at the time, but was using the J-Land System to integrate information within their county. Lincoln and White Pine counties were very interested.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the J-Land System provided the information needed.
Mr. Titus replied that AOC staff was working with Elko County and the vendor to provide the statistics that were needed. Funding for modifications was limited. Mr. Titus offered to obtain more information on the J-Land System, if requested.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Judge Edward Dannan, Justice of the Peace, Reno District Court, Reno, NV.
Judge Dannan was part of the Judicial Collections Task Force and attended most of the meetings in Carson City, Reno and Las Vegas until the task force adjourned about a month ago. Judge Dannan was asked by Ms. Kavanau to present an overview of the task force in relation to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 10 of the Sixty-Ninth Session (S.C.R. 10) (Exhibit F). S.C.R. 10 directed the Legislative Commission to conduct an interim study concerning the fees, fines, forfeitures and administrative assessments, which are imposed and collected by the courts of the State of Nevada. Judge Dannan continued by reading a prepared statement (Exhibit G) into the record in regards to the purpose, schedule and benefits of the task force. Upon completion of his reading, he asked if there were any questions.
Chairman Anderson reminded Judge Dannan that he (Chairman Anderson) had chaired the S.C.R. 10 committee, in 1997. Interpretation of the proper disbursing of those dollars and that constitutional question still remained perplexing. It was believed that the dollars collected would try to keep the role of the judges away from the dollar question, so the jurists could do what they were supposed to do and the cost of running the court system would not be their concern. That seemed to have been an imperative and the reason why S.C.R. 10 went forward. The problem was that once you created a river of dollars, or even a trickle of pennies, into any one source fund, it was very difficult to then divert the dollar flows back to where the original intent might have been. In this case, the state permanent school fund. Those who served on the task force between the 1997 and 1999 session would be looking forward to the report and hoped it would appear in a timely fashion.
Judge Dannan stated the State Judicial Council would be reviewing the report on March 2 and it would then be forwarded to the legislature. Judge Dannan drafted the resolutions referenced in his remarks to reflect the collective wisdom of the task force regarding the issues of fines, fees and forfeitures. He further made specific recommendations as to how those particular things should be handled on a local and state level. Those resolutions would probably be considered before the Assembly Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee for discussion.
Chairman Anderson stressed the deadline of February 26 as the last day for committee action to introduce bills.
Chairman Anderson again entertained questions from the committee members.
Assemblyman Nolan asked to be informed regarding communication between the court system and the penal system. Specifically, he questioned how the court would address issues of overcrowding in the prisons.
Ms. Kavanau stated that the AOC was in the embryonic stages of creating conferences between judiciary and law enforcement on issues such as that. Ms. Kavanau had not been involved in those conferences, but was aware that for the first time in memory the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety was invited to the last State Judicial Council meeting to talk about issues of common interest. This meeting resulted in support for a formal workshop venue for meeting on a regular basis, to find solutions across traditional boundaries. Another exciting area that the AOC was involved in with law enforcement staff resulted from Mr. Titus bringing vendors to the task force to demonstrate electronic citation devices which addressed the problem of lack of readability of citations. Mr. Kavanau reported the response of law enforcement, sitting in a judicial meeting, to the vendors … “The synergy is growing, but it is still a new thing that needs to be pursued.” No meetings have been set with the Department of Prisons regarding the issue of overcrowding.
Chairman Anderson said that issue would be covered as part of the presentation the next day on the classification system of the Department of Prison System. Also, scheduled on Monday, the Audit Division would talk about the Sex Offender Certification Panels and the Department of Prisons would respond to their audit.
Assemblyman Collins made reference to the Revolutionary War, reasons that early Americans left England and the practice of indentured services. He asked that it be remembered, “We do not arrest and punish offenders to pay our bills.”
Chairman Anderson commented that was the reason the Nevada Legislature was a “citizen legislature”.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Judge Michael Griffin sitting in the back of the committee room and asked that he approach the microphone to speak. Michael Griffin, District Court Judge in Carson City, elected in 1979 and second in seniority in the state, was asked to be present by Ms. Kavanau.
Chairman Anderson stated he was aware that Washoe County had a successful drug court.
Judge Griffin replied he knew the committee would be discussing the drug court, which had proven to be very successful in an effort to “force people to change their behavior.” Also to be discussed would be the mental health court. Pending funding, it was anticipated to have a drug court in five counties in western Nevada. It was also hoped that a mental health court would be available in five counties, as well. As soon as the model was implemented, it would be taken to more counties.
In response to a question by Assemblyman Nolan regarding what the courts were doing with the prisons, Mr. Gibson remarked that Washoe and Clark counties were allowing a pre-release of some of the “117” people (those going out on house arrest) into a new program which had recently received federal funding and some money from the Interim Finance Committee.
Chairman Anderson was of the opinion that further information might be helpful in the future since the early release program had received press in the north, which was not all favorable.
Chairman Anderson continued with comments regarding the fact that the legislature was the only place where public issues could come forward.
Judges try to stay out of public issues…politicians run toward them. It is really important for the committee to have a thorough understanding of both the problems of the court system, the prosecution system, and the defense bar in trying to provide the real civil rights of the citizenry so that the heavy hand of the government does not become one that is intolerable. At the same time we have a unique view of democracy that the people have the right to be protected all the time and their rights come first. This dialog is absolutely necessary for the legislators in order for the citizen legislature to work.
Chairman Anderson entertained additional questions or statements.
Chairman Anderson noted a quorum was present and recalled that a presentation had been made the previous day on legislation to protect the Millennium Scholarship Trust Fund, the Fund for a Healthy Nevada and Trust Fund for Public Health. A one-page summary (Exhibit H) was given to committee members that outlined the problem and a solution. In the state of Florida, a program was put forth to make sure that funding remained constant. Subsequently, there was a request for a committee introduction for the state of Nevada to have a similar revision to Title 2, Civil Practice, Chapter 20.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion for committee introduction of a bill that dealt with those issues.
Vice Chairman Manendo made a motion that the committee should introduce a bill draft request, which would address a similar piece of legislation for the state of Nevada to protect the Millennium Scholarship dollars.
Chairman Anderson remarked that for questions of debate, support of the concept would not indicate support for the bill itself, but rather for discussion to take place.
Assemblywoman KOivisto seconded the motion.
Chairman Anderson asked if there were any questions on the Manendo-Koivisto motion for the bill draft request on the behalf of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Assemblyman Collins asked for clarification in regards to whether the intent of the bill would be to remove the responsibility of bonding.
Chairman Anderson said the problem had developed over a period of time; so much money had been put into the bond that some tobacco companies had not been able to meet their regular payment responsibilities and actually were put out of business. The committee would be given the chance to hear the bill in its entirety, if the committee agreed to hear it.
Assemblyman Claborn asked who the fiduciaries of the trust would be.
Chairman Anderson said that question would come out in the legislation as it was fully developed.
Assemblyman Claborn exhibited concern that the bonding would be used to save the fiduciary from being sued.
Chairman Anderson replied that the bonding was not intended to save the fiduciary from being sued, but it was to protect the intent of the initial attorney general’s suit, in an effort to have those dollars continue to flow into the Millennium Scholarship.
Assemblyman Claborn asked when the committee would hear the bill. Chairman Anderson answered that it would probably be in April. The bill needed to be drafted.
Assemblyman Collins asked, because of the bond requirements in various industries, would the bill also be referred to Commerce or would it be handled in Judiciary once it was drafted.
Chairman Anderson replied that the bill drafter had the model language from Florida that was provided to legal counsel. The Legal Division would make a determination as to where it would be heard. He said the merits of the question relative to the Millennium Scholarship were what should be focused upon.
Chairman Anderson determined that a quorum was present. He placed the question on the Manendo-Koivisto motion for bill draft introduction.
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: