Letter: Former Carson City DA supports Woodbury

Neil Rombardo, the outgoing district attorney, submitted an opinion letter to Carson Now on October 10, supporting the candidacy of his assistant, Mark Krueger, for D.A. in Carson City. His letter briefly praises Krueger for his work experience and attention to crime victims. He then proceeds to criticize the other candidate for D.A., Jason Woodbury, through ad hominem attacks upon the people who support his election. Every first-year law student learns that engaging in personal attacks upon another person or his friends, instead of challenging that person’s ideas or principles, is very popular, but both illogical and somewhat sleazy.

Unfortunately, such attacks have become very popular with Mr. Rombardo and his favored candidate. For instance, the letter asserts a defense attorney supporting Jason Woodbury violated a court no-contact order (the district judge ruled it was unintentional), and another was recently charged (not convicted) for a drunken altercation with a police officer. He asks, “Do the people of Carson City want their District Attorney elected by these types of defense lawyers?” That is classic ad hominem nonsense, folks. Let’s look at some facts in evaluating who is the best choice for Carson’s next D.A.

The Nevada Appeal on October 2 reported that the Nevada Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the dismissal of 12 felony counts of sexual assault and lewdness upon two children under age 14 at the time of the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court ruled that the district judge properly dismissed the charges because the lead prosecutor (who was Mark Krueger) failed to make diligent efforts to determine the dates of the alleged offenses, a constitutional violation of the Sixth and 14th Amendments and a statutory violation of NRS 173.075, which requires that crimes be charged with reasonable specificity. The case is State of Nevada v. Jefferey David Volosin, Case No. 64082 (opinion filed September 29, 2014), for those who wish to read it for themselves.

The Supreme Court’s order in this case noted that the initial case investigation was done by South Lake Tahoe police detectives, and charges were brought in that jurisdiction. The matter was forwarded to Carson City police authorities because the two girls made allegations of sexual abuse occurring years earlier, in Carson City. The lead prosecutor, Mark Krueger, filed Carson City criminal charges without conducting any additional investigation. Here’s what the Court said: “The report arising from the California investigation was forwarded to the Carson City Sheriff’s Department, but the Carson City District Attorney appears to have filed the information without performing any independent investigation.” (Order of Affirmance, p. 6). The Court added: “Indeed, the State appears to have failed to even interview the victims who were, at that point, eighteen and fifteen years old, and presumably more capable of conveying useful information than younger victims would be.” (Order, p. 8).

When the public defender lawers representing Volosin objected on constitutional and statutory grounds to the lack of effort given to determining the dates of the alleged offenses, District Judge James Wilson had to agree. He also found the charging document was deficient because it charged multiple crimes in each count (Order, p.2). However, the judge gave the prosecution the opportunity to amend the charging document with more specific dates of the allegations, and to separate multiple charges. Mr. Krueger, apparently confident that Judge Wilson was wrong about the law, flatly refused to do this. So, all the charges were dismissed before trial, and the State appealed. The three-judge panel of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the district court judge, and the case remains dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Rombardo says he is planning an appeal to a full panel of the Supreme Court. Do that. Please.

Here is another factual circumstance to consider in evaluating fitness for the D.A. job: a lawsuit Mark Krueger filed in Lyon County, as a deputy D.A., against Lyon County and its county commissioners. This is Case CI 22576 in the Third District Court, which was initiated in August, 2012. At that time, Krueger was a senior deputy D.A. in Lyon County. He brought a civil lawsuit as the attorney of record for various county elected officials and employees, including himself, against the county commissioners in a salary dispute over the county commissioners’ decision to freeze merit pay increases. Anyone see a problem with this? Lyon County, and its commissioners, is the client of the D.A.– in the real world, you can’t sue your own client!

A senior district judge, appointed from outside the area to avoid conflicts of interest or bias, ruled that Nevada law (NRS 244.235 and NRS 252.180) prohibits a district attorney from filing a claim against the county for which he is legal counsel, and NRS 252.120 prohibits a district attorney or deputy from representing persons suing the county for which he is the legal counsel (Order, by Senior District Judge Charles McGee, filed October 23, 2012, pages 1-2). The court order dismissed the lawsuit because of the statutory prohibitions against a district attorney or deputy suing his client county. The court’s final sentence in the Order reads: “On any re-filing, Attorney Krueger shall not act as counsel unless he shows this Court a clearance for such representation from Nevada Bar counsel.” (Order, p. 2).

The Lyon County Commissioners had to retain outside legal counsel to represent them in this lawsuit: Madelyn Shipman, of Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd., in Reno. Krueger tried to defend his actions by saying he left his employment to join the Carson D.A.’s office on August 22, 2012. However, the demand upon the county was made the previous July 31, and the lawsuit was filed August 9, while he was a deputy D.A., in violation of NRS 244.235, 252.120 and 252.180.

I am mindful that the election is fast approaching, and that it is easy to take unsubstantiated pot-shots. Therefore, I am enclosing with this letter to the editor electronic copies of the Supreme Court’s 11-page Order upholding the dismissal of child sexual abuse charges in the Volosin case, and the 2-page dismissal of Krueger’s 2012 lawsuit against his own client, Lyon County.

I expect to be criticized as another low-life defense attorney supporting Jason Woodbury. I will admit, proudly, to being a defense attorney in Carson City for the past 6 years. On the other hand, I also served 25 years in the D.A.’s Office, 21 of them as the elected district attorney. As the D.A., I respected the role of the defense bar in the criminal justice system, and counted many of them among my friends, and, indeed, as my supporters during five elections. I served at least three terms as president of the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, taught police academy P.O.S.T. classes for many years, and was given the William Raggio Prosecutor of the Year Award by my peers in 2006. I believe I’m entitled to my informed opinion that Jason Woodbury should be elected as our next District Attorney, and I hope you will agree with me.

Noel Waters
Nevada State Bar #48
Carson City resident since 1962.