Opinion by Jason Woodbury: No excuse for D.A.'s indecision

The District Attorney’s response to concerns about his indecision on the death penalty in the McCune murder prosecution is deeply disappointing.

Mr. Rombardo believes his position entitles him to unilaterally label criticism as “senseless political attacks,” thereby relieving the need to respond in any substantive way. Instead of an explanation, Carson City is offered platitudes. Rather than reason, we are told to rely on blind faith that the District Attorney is doing “the right thing.” Perhaps that is good enough for some. Not for me. Not when Carson City taxpayers are already on the hook for defense costs in this case totaling almost $97,000.

Mr. Rombardo claims he does not want to “rush to judgment.” 150 days have passed since the arrests in this case. Let’s compare that to other cases. The Las Vegas Sun recently profiled nine capital murder cases pending in Clark County. In those cases, the Clark County District Attorney, on average, made a decision on the death penalty within 51 days of arrest. The longest time between arrest and decision was 82 days. I haven’t heard the Clark County District Attorney complain about being rushed to judgment.

Many remember the Darren Mack case in Reno. Mack killed his wife and then shot Judge Chuck Weller. Almost everything about that case was abnormal. Mack was arrested in Mexico. And although the crimes occurred in Washoe County, the Washoe County District Attorney could not prosecute the case. If ever a case justified an extended time to decide on the death penalty, it was Mack. Even under those bizarre circumstances the decision was made 80 days after Mr. Mack’s arrest.

How about the O.J. Simpson case, the most infamous criminal trial in a generation? Even in that case—in which nearly every step of the process moved at a fraction of the normal pace—prosecutors decided against the death penalty 84 days after Simpson’s arrest.

And yet Carson City has waited five months for a decision. Now the D.A. tells us we must wait even longer.

Presumably referring to himself, Mr. Rombardo states “[a]ny good prosecutor” expects to learn “valuable information” during the preliminary hearing which “should be considered” before making a decision. Fair enough. Good prosecutors do know that. But they also know something else. Delay favors the defense. Memories fade; witnesses relocate; and the victim’s loved ones endure a terrible emotional toll. Meanwhile, the meter on defense costs relentlessly runs. In Mack, the preliminary hearing began 68 days after his arrest. In the murder of State Controller Kathy Augustine, another peculiar case, the preliminary hearing of Chaz Higgs started 38 days after his arrest. The preliminary hearing in the 1998 Resendiz murder in Carson City involved 12 defendants and was a logistical nightmare. But it still began within 15 days of arrests. However in the McCune murder the first day of the currently scheduled preliminary hearing will be 184 days after the arrests. This delay is beyond extraordinary.

Of the many words in his response, not one explains specific circumstances which the District Attorney believes might justify such a delay of the preliminary hearing. Mr. Rombardo excuses his lack of detail stating it would violate his “ethical code to speak of an on-going case.” This sudden discretion seems inconsistent with someone who has issued press releases, granted media interviews, operates websites and maintains a Facebook page—all of which disclose information and link to additional sources about this on-going case.

I agree with Mr. Rombardo on one point. He and I have a very different understanding of the criminal justice process. Where he perceives a “senseless political attack,” I stand by my genuine fiscal concern. No one is demanding a “rush to judgment.” Carson City is, however, entitled to a long overdue decision.

— Jason Woodbury is an attorney in Carson City