3 7 12 0204 1708 Mtn Set Aside Order to Show Cause, Continue Stay Hearing CV11-03628-2753310 (Mtn Alter or Amend Judgment)

7/29/2019 3 7 12 0204 1708 Mtn Set Aside Order to Show Cause, Continue Stay Hearing CV11-03628-2753310 (Mtn Alter or Amend Judgment)

1/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Document Code:Zach Coughlin, Esq.Nevada Bar No: 94734!! E. 9th "t. #!$eno, N% &9'!

(ele: 77')33&)&&*a+: 949)7)74-!ZachCoughlinhotmail.com/ttorne0 1or 2ro "e /ttorne0 /ellant

N (5E "EC6ND 8DC/ D"($C( C68$( 6* (5E "(/(E 6* NE%/D/

N /ND *6$ (5E C68N( 6* ;/"56E

Z/C5/$ C68/((5E; >E$""

$esondent.

??

???????????

C/"E N6: C%)-3!&

DE2(: D7

Motion to Set Aside Order to Show Cause; or alternatively, Motion to Continue or Stay

Hearing on Order to Show Cause Pending the Resolution of the Criminal Trespass Matter

C6>E" N6;, art0 designated as reresented, @0 and through attorne0, Z/C5/$

B/$AE$ C68


2/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(here is a arallel criminal roceeding in $>C C$ !4-' hich is to go to (rial 1airl0 soon, @ut not rior to

the 6rder (o "ho Cause 5earing in this matter.

%%& AR*#M!T)

Against a party who ta+es the $ifth& *enerally, the deision in a ivil ase whether to admit one-s

invoation of the $ifth Amendment into evidene is in the distrit ourt-s disretion& $arae v& %ndep& $ire %ns& Co&,

.// $&0d 012, 031 45th Cir&3/678& There is no onstitutional 9ar to the admission of this evidene, and it may 9e

admitted if it is relevant and not otherwise prohi9ited 9y the rules of evidene& :ater v& Palmigiano, 205 #&S& 716,

73. 43/33 4error to admit that

plaintifftoo+ the $ifth in a riminal investigation) pre=udiial effet outweighed the pro9ative value of that

evidene, whih should have 9een eluded8& %f a witness who ta+es the $ifth at an early proeeding 9ut later

hanges his position and testifies, then his original invoation of the $ifth should not 9e used against him& Harrell

v& "CS ?uipment 'easing Corp&, /53 $&0d 3257, 32.2 45th Cir&3//08; $arae, .// $&0d at 01/>33& 0& Against the

witness- employer@ The same rules of evidene govern whether to admit an employee-s invoation of the $ifth in a

suit against that witness- employer& See Curtis v& MS Petroleum, %n&, 3inrimination, BuDpon 9eing

served with disovery re?uests, a orporation must appoint agents who an, without fear of self>inrimination,

furnish relevant information availa9le to the orporation&B %d& at .otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


3/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ase until the riminal ase is resolved& A& Ehen Can a Stay 9e Sought@ %f the ivil witnessdefendant has already

9een indited, then the ris+ of riminal proseution 4and the need for the stay8 is lear& %f the ivil

witnessdefendant has not 9een indited, he will have to onvine a sometimes s+eptial =udge that the ris+ is real

and imminent& The BHo9son-s Choie,B however, eists 9efore or after inditment, as any testimony given in a ivi

ase 9efore inditment may 9e used 9y proseutors& %n the leading ase of Eehling v& Colum9ia :roadasting Sys&,

.16 $&0d 3162 45th Cir& 3/6/ 4reversing

denial of stay, 9alaning the interests involved, when movant had appeared 9efore a grand =ury five times, his

lawyer 9elieved he was a Btarget, and ompany was ooperating with the government in the riminal investigation

"enying a stay would re?uire the plaintiff Bto hoose 9etween his silene and his lawsuitB8; see also Imart Corp&

v& Aronds, Civ& !o& H> /.>3030 4S&"& Te& "e& 33, 3//.8& !ota9ly, the party o9taining the stay in Eehling was a

plaintiffin the ivil suit& Ehether to grant a stay onstitutes a disretionary all 9y the trial ourt& Courts have

held that the following fators are relevant to the determination of whether to grant a stay) B38 the etent to whih

the issues in the riminal and ivil ases overlap; 08 the status of the ase, inluding whether the defendants have

9een indited; 78 the plaintiff-s interest in proeeding epeditiously weighed against the pre=udie to plaintiff

aused 9y a delay; 28 the private interests of and 9urden on defendants; 58 the interests of the ourt; and .8 the

pu9li interest&B Ealsh Seurities, %n& v& Cristo Property Management, 'td&, < $&Supp&0d 507, 50.>0otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


4/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

opposing ivil party its day in ourt& A riminal defendant faes =eopardy through the end of his trial, through his

sentening, and even through his appeal& "epending on the fats, the ourt has disretion whether to order a stay

throughout appeal& & See attahed Motion for Stay and Order in #nited States v& $astow where the Court stayed

"efendant-s o9ligations to file an Answer or respond to disovery during the pendeny of riminal proeedings&

%K& Corporate CooperationEaiver of PrivilegeThrowing mployees Over9oard Our riminal law is not supposed

to punish defendants for eerising their right to trial, 9ut it may 4and does8 reward defendants who aept

responsi9ility for their rimes, ooperate with governmental authorities, and show remorse and reha9ilitation& %n

the last deade, punishments for federal rime have inreased dramatially& Many arry life in prison 4suh as for

a third narotis offense or for a seurities fraud affeting a ma=or pu9li ompany8& As the gap in punishment

9etween losing a trial and pleading guilty widens, the distintion 9etween rewarding ooperation and punishing

defendants for eerising their right to trial evaporates, and innoent as well as guilty people will deide they must

give up their right to trial& Many orporations fear that merely 9eing indited will epose them to intolera9le osts,

whih they will ta+e etreme ation to avoid& The fear of eessive punishment, plus the methods of ooperation,

are eroding traditional notions of the adversarial system& C& Ehat is stayed) the whole ase or rather a part of A&

disovery@ %n 3///, and again in 0117, the "epartment of Justie issued memoranda desri9ing fators it would

onsider in deiding whether to proseute The ourt has disretion to stay an entire ivil a orporation that had

ommitted a rime& ase, inluding even the o9ligation to file an answer, or only a part of disovery, if a more

limited stay will serve the re?uired purposes& "& How long does stay last@

% have gone through a very, very rough path reently& %n June 0133 my partner of 5 years left me and

moved out of our shared home law offie& #nfortunately, un+nown to me at the time, she had so+ed away two

months of rent that % was under the impression she was forwarding on to the landlord, as was always our

arrangement in the previous years& % an-t really say this woman, Melissa #lloa, BstoleB the money from me or

anything li+e that& As % am sure you +now, living with a domesti partner for 5 years entails a great deal of mied

finanes, however, it was a omplete surprise to me in early August, 0133 or so my landlord ontated me a9out

the missing rent& And of ourse it was devastating to have a 5 year live in relationship that mean so muh to me

end, partiularly after % had sarified to muh over that time to help Ms& #lloa 9eome the first person in her

family to graduate from ollege& She did, from #!R with a degree in =ournalism, in May 0133& Her father moved

here from Laateas, Meio and has wor+ed as a short order oo+ for over 01 years, so % was enormously moving

- 4

>otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


5/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to wath Melissa graduate last year, +nowing what long odds suh a proposition faed, and how many shared

sarifies where involved&

got arrested on /ugust !-th, !- incident to a ver0 unusual situation here a hi0 1ound a hone in the sate

ar, held it alo1t, and announced he ould thro it in the river i1 some@od0 didnFt claim it immediatel0. "ome

sate@oarders angril0 accosted me some time therea1ter, and 1rightened and ala0s aard ith the olice, m0 resonse

turned the situation into something much more damaging to me than it ro@a@l0 should have @een. ;hile in Gail 1or si+

da0s incident to that charge, could not get ahold o1 an0@od0 to @ail me out, or sign the @ail sheet, and donFt @elieve

have the 1ull @ail required 1or the then 1elon0 grand larcen0 charge)the charge as soon therea1ter reduced to ett0

larcen0. ;hile in Gail, a No Cause "ummar0 Eviction 1rom m0 then home la o11ice as instituted Hand argua@l0, a

ease /greement lie the one involved, hich alloed 1or commercial uses o1 the roert0, made imermissi@le the uses

o1 the summar0 eviction rocedures 1ound in N$" 4-.!'3?, and that resulted in a ver0 rolonged legal @attle ith $ichard

r. 5ill and ish him no harm and Gust ant these situations to de1use as much as

ossi@le and hoe1ull0, result, in m0 retaining m0 la license and having an oortunit0 to ic u the ieces o1 m0 li1e,

mae m0 mea culas and aologies, and @egin to re@uild m0 reutation in our legal communit0 and amongst the udges.

>0 2u@lic De1ender in the /ugust !-th, !- ett0 larcen0 arrest 1or the the1t or ossession o1 lost, mislaid roert0

ith intent to derive is oe


6/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0ou ill 1ind a co0 o1 an a11idavit @0 Dr. >erliss, veri10ing and udating the rincial amount o1 0our underl0ing de@t

to him as o1 6cto@er 7, !-. /dditional late 1ees and charges 1or 0our electricit0 use have attached since that date. n

addition to the sums identi1ied @0 Dr. >erliss in his a11idavit, 0our de@t no also includes 1ees 1or storage o1 0our

ersonal ossessions le1t at the roert0, hich accrue dail0 at thefair rental value of the property

. our de@t 1urther

includes actual costs 1or inventor0ing and moving 0our ossessions 1rom the roert0. "ee N$" &/.4-. (hose sums

ill @e rovided to 0ou once the0 have @een 1i+ed.

N$" &/.!- $ental agreements: 2a0ment o1 rent= term o1 tenanc0. . $ent is a0a@leithout demand or notice at the time and lace agreed uon @0 the arties. !. 8nless therental agreement esta@lishes a de1inite term, the tenanc0 is 1rom ee to ee in the caseo1 a tenant ho a0s eel0 rent and in all other cases the tenanc0 is 1rom month to month.3. n the a@sence o1 an agreement, either ritten or oral: Ha? $ent is a0a@le at the

@eginning o1 the tenanc0= and H@? $ent 1or the use and occuanc0 o1 a delling is the 1airrental value 1or the use and occuanc0

no udge 5oard and udge Nash 5olmes are liel0 ver0 uset ith me. have a great deal o1 resect 1or

@oth o1 those udges and hoe to earn their resect ultimatel0. Both recentl0 sentenced me to several da0s o1

incarceration ursuant to a "ummar0 Contemt Committed in the CourtFs 2resence 1inding. *urther, udge 5olmes has

aarentl0 had m0 to cell hones and erhas some other materials con1iscated ursuant to the search incident to arrest

in connection ith m0 summar0 contemt incarceration incident to the recent (rial in $>C tra11ic citation matter tr

!&-- Hticet num@er '44!&? hich occurred at m *e@. !7th, !- @e1ore udge 5olmes, herein $eno Cit0

/ttorne0 6rmaas as reresenting the Cit0 o1 $eno.

(he Gail did not give me @ac m0 to cell hones or a micro sd card...the0 said the $eno >unicial Court

H$>C? con1iscated those items on !K!&K!, though the0 indicated that the0 did not require the $>C Hactuall0 the $eno

>arshalFs division? to sho a court order or arrant rior to so con1iscating those items. /arentl0 the0 are holding

these items ursuant to ro@a@le cause, o1 hat do not no. udge Nash 5olmes questioned me in oen court as to

hether as recording the roceeding. (he roceedings are recorded as a matter o1 la @0 the court, and the

roceeding is an oen hearing, art o1 the u@lic record, so... am not sure hat she as getting at, @ut...(he $eno

>arshalFs >arshal 5a0ne0 Hor 5ine0, not sure? and the $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas ere seen hisering in each otherFs

ears during the hearing H noted that ver@all0 into the record? and a1ter the hearing, hile >arshal 5a0ne0 as searching

- 6



7/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

me ursuant to m0 @eing arrested Hhich as odd given as in the rocess o1 attemting to a0 the alternate disciline

udge 5olmes had o11ered, I'--, hich as suosed to ena@le me to avoid serving the ' da0s Gail time?, he 1ound m0

hone and a micro sd card as on the 1loor ne+t to m0 1oot. 5e immediatel0 started accusing me o1 recording and told

the other >arshalFs to reort that had @een doing so to the udge, udge Nash 5olmes.

t seemed that the Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas as a1raid had a recording o1 her telling me she did not care a@out an0

reorts o1 @ri@er0 @0 $ichard C maes o1 all hearings, i1 it doesnFt m0steriousl0 disaear or get damaged?

includes m0 stating that had attemted to rovide such roo1 to not onl0 $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 6rmaas, @ut also the

revious $eno Cit0 /ttorne0 on the case, Dan ;ong, and that the0 had @oth told me the0 didnFt care to hear a@out such

@ri@er0 allegations involving the $eno 2D and $ichard C tra11ic citation matter is tr !&-- $>C Hticet num@er '44!&? and the (rial or

5earing occurred at m *e@. !7th @e1ore udge 5olmes

/@out - da0s ago 1iled an alication 1or a temorar0 rotection order against a $eno ustice Court Baili11

named $e0es. Baili11 $e0es had, on ro@a@l0 Novem@er !&, !- or so, told me he as going to ut his 1oot u 0our

ass. 5e continued to @e menacing and aggressive to me and 1inall0 1iled a rotection order a@out - da0s ago. (o m0

noledge, no decision or hearing has @een held on that rotection order, and Aaren "tancil, Chie1 Civil Cler ith the

$C in1ormed me it as @eing trans1erred to "ars ustice Court H @elieve? do to the $C having a con1lict. /lso,

- 7



8/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reorted to $C Court /dministrator (uttle another incident herein Chie1 Baili11 >ichael "e+ton has made menacing

commentar0 to me regarding m0 ass as ell, tice during (hansgiving ee in the Civil Division *iling 611ice.

am telling 0ou this @ecause donFt no hat to do, or hat is going to haen. am tr0ing to de1use the

situation as @est as ossi@le....(o clari10, the $>C is the $eno >unicial Court and the0 emlo0 >arshals to @e the

muscle in court. (he $C is the $eno ustice Court and the0 emlo0 Baili11s to do the same.

Additional 'egal Points to Consider)

N$" &/.39- 8nla1ul removal or e+clusion o1 tenant or ill1ul interrution o1 essential items or services=

rocedure 1or e+edited relie1. . 1 the landlord unla1ull0 removes the tenant 1rom the remises or e+cludes the tenant

@0 @locing or attemting to @loc the tenantLs entr0 uon the remises, ill1ull0 interruts or causes or ermits the

interrution o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this chater or otherise recovers

ossession o1 the delling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-, the tenant ma0 recover immediate ossession ursuant to

su@section 4, roceed under N$" &/.3&- or terminate the rental agreement and, in addition to an0 other remed0,

recover the tenantLs actual damages, receive an amount not greater than I!,'-- to @e 1i+ed @0 the court, or @oth. !. n

determining the amount, i1 an0, to @e aarded under su@section , the court shall consider: Ha? ;hether the landlord acted

in good 1aith= H@? (he course o1 conduct @eteen the landlord and the tenant= and Hc? (he degree o1 harm to the tenant

caused @0 the landlordLs conduct. 3. 1 the rental agreement is terminated ursuant to su@section , the landlord shall

return all reaid rent and securit0 recovera@le under this chater. 4. E+cet as otherise rovided in su@section ', the

tenant ma0 recover immediate ossession o1 the remises 1rom the landlord @0 1iling a veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited

relie1 1or the unla1ul removal or e+clusion o1 the tenant 1rom the remises, the ill1ul interrution o1 an0 essential item

or service or the recover0 o1 ossession o1 the delling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-. '. / veri1ied comlaint 1or

e+edited relie1: Ha? >ust @e 1iled ith the court ithin ' Gudicial da0s a1ter the date o1 the unla1ul act @0 the landlord,

and the veri1ied comlaint must @e dismissed i1 it is not timel0 1iled. 1 the veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1 is

dismissed ursuant to this aragrah, the tenant retains the right to ursue all other availa@le remedies against the

landlord. H@? >a0 not @e 1iled ith the court i1 an action 1or summar0 eviction or unla1ul detainer is alread0 ending

@eteen the landlord and tenant, @ut the tenant ma0 see similar relie1 @e1ore the Gudge residing over the ending action.

- 8



9/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

. (he court shall conduct a hearing on the veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1 not later than 3 Gudicial da0s a1ter the

1iling o1 the veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1. Be1ore or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant must rovide roo1 that

the landlord has @een roerl0 served ith a co0 o1 the veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1. 8on the hearing, i1 it is

determined that the landlord has violated an0 o1 the rovisions o1 su@section , the court ma0: Ha? 6rder the landlord to

restore to the tenant the remises or essential items or services, or @oth= H@? /ard damages ursuant to su@section = and

Hc? EnGoin the landlord 1rom violating the rovisions o1 su@section and, i1 the circumstances so arrant, hold the

landlord in contemt o1 court. 7. (he a0ment o1 all costs and o11icial 1ees must @e de1erred 1or an0 tenant ho 1iles a

veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1. /1ter an0 hearing and not later than 1inal disosition o1 the 1iling or order, the

court shall assess the costs and 1ees against the art0 that does not revail, e+cet that the court ma0 reduce them or aive

them, as Gustice ma0 require.

!RS 336A&7/1 #nlawful removal or elusion of tenant or willful interruption of

essential items or servies; proedure for epedited relief&. 1 the landlord unla1ull0removes the tenant 1rom the remises or e+cludes the tenant @0 @locing or attemting to@loc the tenantLs entr0 uon the remises, ill1ull0 interruts or causes or ermits theinterrution o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or this chateror otherise recovers ossession o1 the delling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-, thetenant ma0 recover immediate ossession ursuant to su@section 4, roceed under N$"&/.3&-...4. E+cet as otherise rovided in su@section ', the tenant ma0 recoverimmediate ossession o1 the remises 1rom the landlord @0 1iling a veri1ied comlaint 1ore+edited relie1 1or the unla1ul removal or e+clusion o1 the tenant 1rom the remises, theill1ul interrution o1 an0 essential item or service or the recover0 o1 ossession o1 the

delling unit in violation o1 N$" &/.4&-. '. / veri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1:Ha? >ust @e 1iled ith the court ithin ' Gudicial da0s a1ter the date o1 the unla1ul act @0the landlord, and the veri1ied comlaint must @e dismissed i1 it is not timel0 1iled. 1 theveri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1 is dismissed ursuant to this aragrah, the tenantretains the right to ursue all other availa@le remedies against the landlord. H@? >a0 not @e1iled ith the court i1 an action 1or summar0 eviction or unla1ul detainer is alread0ending @eteen the landlord and tenant, @ut the tenant ma0 see similar relie1 @e1ore theGudge residing over the ending action. . (he court shall conduct a hearing on theveri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1 not later than 3 Gudicial da0s a1ter the 1iling o1 theveri1ied comlaint 1or e+edited relie1. Be1ore or at the scheduled hearing, the tenant mustrovide roo1 that the landlord has @een roerl0 served ith a co0 o1 the veri1iedcomlaint 1or e+edited relie1. 8on the hearing, i1 it is determined that the landlord hasviolated an0 o1 the rovisions o1 su@section , the court ma0: Ha? 6rder the landlord to

restore to the tenant the remises or essential items or services, or @oth= H@? /ard damagesursuant to su@section = and Hc? EnGoin the landlord 1rom violating the rovisions o1su@section and, i1 the circumstances so arrant, hold the landlord in contemt o1 court.

*urther, !RS 336A&261 'andlords reovery of possession of dwelling unit) (helandlord shall not recover or tae ossession o1 the delling unit @0 action or otherise,including ill1ul diminution or interrution or causing or ermitting the diminution orinterrution o1 an0 essential item or service required @0 the rental agreement or thischater, e+cet: . B0 an action 1or ossession or other civil action or summar0 roceeding

- 9



10/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in hich the issue o1 right o1 ossession is determined= !. ;hen the tenant has surrenderedossession o1 the delling unit to the landlord= or 3. ;hen the tenant has a@andoned thedelling unit as rovided in N$" &/.4'-

N$" &/.4&- comes into la0 i1 the landlord did tae recover0 o1 ossession o1 m0 1ormer home la o11ice

at ! $iver $oc "t. rior to @eing legall0 alloed to do so. (o anal0Je this, one must no hat t0e o1 service o1

the 6rder o1 "ummar0 Eviction is required. (his @eing a civil matter, the rendition o1 Gudgment or order or

rendered language one 1inds in criminal statutes lie N$" &9.-- Hherein the deadline 1or 1iling a Notice o1

/eal 1rom a criminal conviction is set 1orth? is inalica@le. (hat @eing said, and as e+licitl0 set 1orth in N$"

/ letter 1rom the ;ashoe Count0 "heri11Fs 611ice H;C"6? Civil DivisionFs iJ "tuchell rovides some insight as to

hether the locout that too lace on Novem@er , !- in this case as ermissi@le.

"u@Gect: $E: ;C"6 Deut0 >achemFs ersonall0 served /11idavit o1 KK!-Date: (ue, 7 *e@ !-! :4-:39 )-&--*rom: "tuchellashoecount0.us(o: Jachcoughlinhotmail.comCC: mandarasda.ashoecount0.us

>r. Coughlin,

6ur records indicate that the eviction conducted on that da0 as ersonall0served @0 Deut0 >achen @0 osting a co0 o1 the 6rder to the residence. (he residenceas unoccuied at the time.iJ "tuchell, "uervisor ;C"6 Civil "ection

2ut siml0, the Novem@er , !- locout, 1or hich ;C"6 Deut0 >achem indicates he ersonall0 served

the 6rder o1 "ummar0 Eviction, as not la1ull0 conducted, and as such is ine11ective and invoes the rovision o1

N$" &/.4&-. ;hen considering that the tenant did 1ile such a comlaint 1or illegal locout, and the 1act that the

$C 1ailed to rule on tenants 1iling Hand a good deal o1 other such 1ilings @0 the tenant have languished in the $C

unruled on desite requests 1or su@mission @eing su@mitted...?, the current criminal tresass roceeding in the $>C in

C$ !4-' and the 5earing on the 6rder to "ho Cause currentl0 set 1or >arch !3rd at :-- am in Deartment 7 in

C%)-3!&, the aeal 1rom the eviction matter involving $ichard


11/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

inalica@le to the current one. N$" 4-.!'3H3?H@?H!?, and N$" 4-.!'3H'?Ha? are the onl0 sections o1 N$" 4- here this

Mithin !4 hours language occurs, and those situations onl0 al0 here, in:

4-.!'3H3?H@?H!?: M 3. / notice served ursuant to su@section or ! must: ...H@? /dvise the tenant: O. H!? (hat i1 the court

determines that the tenant is guilt0 o1 an unla1ul detainer, the court ma0 issue a summar0 order 1or removal o1 the tenant

or an order roviding 1or the nonadmittance o1 the tenant, directing the sheri11 or consta@le o1 the count0 to remove the

tenant ithin !4 hours a1ter receit o1 the order

and,

4-.!'3H'?Ha?: M'. 8on noncomliance ith the notice: Ha? (he landlord or the landlordLs agent ma0 al0 @0 a11idavit o1

comlaint 1or eviction to the Gustice court o1 the tonshi in hich the delling, aartment, mo@ile home or commercial

remises are located or to the district court o1 the count0 in hich the delling, aartment, mo@ile home or commercial

remises are located, hichever has Gurisdiction over the matter. (he court ma0 thereuon issue an order directing the

sheri11 or consta@le o1 the count0 to remove the tenant ithin !4 hours a1ter receit o1 the order. (he a0 these summar0

eviction roceedings are @eing carried out in $eno ustice Court resentl0 shocs the conscience and violates Nevada

la. (here is not @asis 1or e11ectuating a locout the a0 ;C"6Fs Deut0 >achem did in this case. (he a@ove to

sections containing the Mithin !4 hours o1 receit language are inalica@le, as those situations do not invoe the

resent circumstances, here the (enant did 1ile an /11idavit and did contest this matter to a degree not o1ten seen. (o

require NevadaFs tenants to get u and get out Mithin !4 hours o1 Mreceit o1 the order Hhat does that even meanP (he

use o1 terms lie Mrendition, Mrendered, Mnotice o1 entr0, Mronounced, is a@sent here, and this Mreceit o1 the order

language is something rarel0 1ound elsehere in Nevada la)see attached D>% statutor0 citations, and in emlo0ment

la litigations here one must 1ile a Comlaint ithin 9- da0s o1 Mreceit o1 a $ight (o "ue etter, a situation hich

1ollos N$C2 'H@?, and N$C2 He? in imuting receit o1 such a letter, hen actual receit is not shon, @0 al0ing a

Mconstructive notice standard that relies uon the da0s 1or mailing e+tension o1 time 1or items served in the mailing,

etc.?. n /@raham v. ;oods 5ole 6ceanograhic nstitute, ''3 *.3d 4 Hst Cir. !--9?, the record did not re1lect hen

the lainti11 received his right)to)sue letter. (he letter as issued on Novem@er !4, !--. (he court calculated that the 9-)

da0 eriod commenced on Novem@er 3-, !--, @ased on three da0s 1or mailing a1ter e+cluding "aturda0s and "unda0s.

- 11



12/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

n order to @ring a claim under either (itle % or the /D/, a lainti11 must e+haust administrative remedies and sue

ithin 9- da0s o1 receit o1 a right to sue letter. "ee 4! 8.".C. Q !---e)'H1?H?. "ee Baldin Count0 ;elcome Center v.

Bron, 4 8.". 47, 4& n., -4 ".Ct. 7!3, &- .Ed.!d 9 H9&4?Hgranting lainti11 an additional three da0s 1or

mailing ursuant to $ule ?.... ...:#T ECSO "P#T( MACHM ST%'' HAS!-T 'AR!" H%S 'SSO!, AS

J#ST O! $:R#AR( 0


13/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

instant case? requires the ;C"6 to e11ect the locout ithin !4 hours o1 the ;C"6 receiving the locout

6rder...otherise such an 6rder ould @ecomestaleP

5oever, to those ho ould Gudge or assert some secial treatment is @eing sought, as 0oursel1 hether

0ou @rought home ith 0ou over the last 3- 0ears ever0oneFs overdosing on methadone, or aling out o1 oneFs o11ice

a1ter maing ever0 assurance that suicide as not at all a ossi@ilit0 onl0 to reveal that, indeed it as, or have countless

eeends and vacations involve hone calls concerning hether a atient is 1ull code or no code...ou @ring that

home ith 0ou 1or 3- 0ears and tell me hat sort o1 comensation is aroriate and then comare it to the managed

care era 1amil0 h0sicianFs and then e can discuss secial treatment. /nd 0ou do that ithout a drin in 3- 0ears

and then 0ou can tal. But all this secial treatment discussion seems a @it strained hen discussing hether $ichard


14/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

counterclaims, desite the e+licit authorit0 1or the tenant doing so uon a court al0ing !RS 336A&2/1 Ations

9ased upon nonpayment of rent) Counterlaim 9y tenant; deposit of rent with ourt; =udgment for evition.

ndeed, the undersigned tenant in that matter did attemt to assert such counterclaims, hoever his right to do so as

denied. "iml0 ut, the landlord as a@le to have it his a0 in so man0 di11erent a0s in this eviction matter. 5e as

a@le to roceed under a no cause summar0 eviction notice herein the nona0ment o1 rent as not alleged hile at the

same time @ene1iting 1rom the court 1orcing the tenant to deosit a rent escro amount o1 I!,!7'. (his aroach is

1urther underscored @0 the 1act that onl0 - da0s or so a1ter receiving the summar0 eviction order the landlordFs counsel

su@mitted to the tenant a landlordFs a11idavit 1or summar0 eviction @ased on the nona0ment o1 rent. t ould seem

onl0 1air and indeed required @0 N$" &/.49- allo the tenant to assert counterclaims here the tenant is so 1orced

to mae a rent escro deosit. /nd, hile the ease /greement rovided that the landlord shall @e, at su@section !&:

06& '%A:%'%T(: management shall not @e lia@le 1or an0 damage or inGur0 to $esident oran0 other erson or to an0 roert0 occurring on the remises or an0 art thereo1, or incommon ares thereo1, unless suh lia9ility is 9ased on the negligent ats or omission ofmanagement, his agent, or employee...

udge "1erraJJa summaril0 ruled that otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


15/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

suited to disosal on summar0 Gudgment: (he @urden o1 roo1 alica@le to a "ummar0 Eviction 2roceeding under N$"

4-.!'3 dictates that, the court ill allo @oth arties to sea and resent evidence on their @ehal1 a1ter hich the court

ill determine hether there is Ma genuine disute o1 material 1acts. H"ee /nvui, C v.


16/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

@ut e have, on occasion, uheld a trial court grant o1 summar0 Gudgment in 1avor o1 a de1endant accused o1

discrimination. "ee, e.g., 5amilton v. 5oard 8niversit0, 9- /.!d 3-&, 3') HD.C.!--&?= ;allace v. "adden, /rs,

"late, >eagher U *lom 2, 799 /.!d 3&, 3& HD.C.!--!?= 5ollins, 7- /.!d at '7. ;e there1ore do not 1oreclose

the ossi@ilit0 that, on a roerl0 suorted record, the trial court ma0 disose o1 a de1ense o1 retaliator0 eviction at the

summar0 Gudgment stage. ;hen the statutor0 resumtion o1 retaliator0 action has @een triggered, hoever, the record

ould have to esta@lish, under the standards that govern summar0 Gudgment, that the landlord has re@utted it @0 clear

and convincing evidence.

ndeed, this is true hen considering that a tough choice 1aces the landlord in this matter. 1 the tenant as a

commercial tenant, then N$" 4-.!'3 1or@ids roceeding under the summar0 eviction rocedure 1ound therein here

onl0 a No Cause Eviction Notice as served Hie, the non)a0ment o1 rent as not alleged?, as as the case in that

matter. 5oever, to the e+tent the landlord ishes to argue the tenant as not a commercial tenant Hdesite the ease

/greement e+licitl0 alloing 1or such use as ell as local Joning las? then the dictates o1 N$" 4-.3&' al0, and the

tenant must @e accorded a sta0 o1 eviction uon deositing ith the court the altr0 some o1 I!'-, much less the I!,!7'

rent escro deosit required to reserve the right to litigate ha@ita@ilit0 issues the $C continued to hold a1ter the

6rder 1or "ummar0 Eviction as signed, and 1or hich the $C classi1ied it as the @ond to cover the costs on aeal.

ndeed, !RS 21&765 Stay of eeution upon appeal; duty of tenant who

retains possession of premises to pay rent during stay&8on an aeal 1rom an order

entered ursuant to N$" 4-.!'3: . E+cet as otherise rovided in this su@section, a

sta0 o1 e+ecution ma0 @e o@tained @0 1iling ith the trial court a @ond in the amount o1

I!'- to cover the e+ected costs on aeal. / suret0 uon the @ond su@mits to the

Gurisdiction o1 the aellate court and irrevoca@l0 aoints the cler o1 that court as the

suret0Ls agent uon hom aers a11ecting the suret0Ls lia@ilit0 uon the @ond ma0 @e

served. ia@ilit0 o1 a suret0 ma0 @e en1orced, or the @ond ma0 @e released, on motion in

the aellate court ithout indeendent action.

- 16



17/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5oever, lease donFt misunderstand, the undersigned is quite 1ond o1 the e+tremel0 intelligent and charismatic

udge "1erraJJa and does not mean this hindsight)quasi)!-K!- vieoint and overl0 critical tone to indicate a lac or

resect 1or the Court or udge "1erraJJa, articularl0 here $ichard erit *inalist could send

months stud0ing it night and da0 and still @arel0 understand it...to sa0 nothing o1 hat is ased o1 the $eno ustice

Court udges, hom must gras such a varied cross section o1 the la on a dail0 @asis, that it literall0 @oggles the mind

the tas 1aced @0 these mem@ers o1 the udiciar0. t is certainl0 not a osition the undersigned could 1athom 1illing

an0time soon, and most liel0never.

!RS 336A&2/1 Ations 9ased upon nonpayment of rent) Counterlaim 9y tenant;deposit of rent with ourt; =udgment for evition&. n an action 1or ossession @aseduon nona0ment o1 rent or in an action 1or rent here the tenant is in ossession, thetenant may defend and ounterlaim for any amount whih the tenant may reover

under the rental agreement, this hapter, or other applia9le law&

$ichard 5ill got me arrested 1or !- hours 1or Ga0aling on K!K!, signing the criminal comlaint hich

resulted in the currentl0 ending criminal case in $>C cr!4-'... as 1ilming 1rom a u@lic sot his contractors

utting lots o1 m0 osessions H1ormer, guess, @ut "1erraJJaFs !K!K 6rder $esolving >otion to Contest 2Ersonal

2roert0 ien ma0@e @e vulnera@le to a -@ voidness set aside as the $C 1ailed to coml0 ith N$" 4-.!'3H7? and H&?Fs

dictates that the $C set a hearing ithin - da0s and have the sheri11 served notice thereo1....the $C seems to onl0

1ollo N$" dictates hen the0 @ene1it landlords or those ith @ig mone0 attorne0s is hat some eole sa0, hear, not

that ould sa0 an0 shit lie that, noe....(hen $ichard 5ill 1iled 1or a stalingKharassment 6$der against me on ! !

hile as in the squad car at the scene at 4m. udge "chroeder got a signed (26 1iled ithin 4' minutes....the

e+tension hearing as 0esterda0, 5ill shoed u said iFve seen neither hide nor hair o1 him, so am moving to ithdra

it...(his a@use o1 rocess and e+tremel0 du@iousl0 1iled (26 @0 $ichard


18/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

% might get suspended from the pratie of law over some of this or otherwise have to report things to the

state 9ar under SCR 333 4onvition of Bserious rimesB8 inident to 9eing arrested for trespass at my former law

offiethen the RJC seems to figure out that thats a no>no and hurries up to get me served for a hearing 4whether %

li+e it or not or whether it omplies with nrp . or servienotie rules8 to get me 9a+ the Q0711&&&so the RJC

didn-t need my permission to set that hearing, 9ut then they laim the ouldn-t omply with the Bmandatory hold

hearing on Motion to Contest Personal Property 'ien within 31 days and have notie of it served 9y the Sheriff

upon 'andlordB found in !RS 21&0574


19/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

my drivers liense for < days&&&$"CPA violations&&&they still haven-t returned the Q


20/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

one a0 street, *orrest...it as at a@out that time that "argent (arter decided he could hear no more

1rom the accused. $egardless, (arter as tailing the accused, the accused as aare o1 it, and the

accused care1ull0 o@e0ed all la o1 tra11ic as he susected (arter ould tr0 to rite some hon0

tra11ic ticet. (his clearl0 contradicts (arters assertion that he as ared and not tailing the

accused, nor had he @egun to, until a1ter itnessing the alleged 1ailure to come to a comlete sto

violation, hich included (arterFs highl0 susect testimon0 hich seemed to de10 the las o1 h0sics

and otics, in addition to other las.

De1endant 1iles this Honl0 to the e+tent it is even necessar0 and some alternate resolution

cannot @e had...@arring that, lease treat this as a Notice o1 /eal as ell, though treating this as a

tolling motion, N$C2 '!, N$C2 '9Ha?,He?, etc. ma0 also @e a nice aroach reventing the 1ast

ace aeals roceed at an or o@viating the need 1or me to 1ile such a Notice o1 /eal? as he as

denied his "i+th /mendment $ight (o Counsel H H this "i+th /mendment $ight to Counsel is

mentioned clearl0 in the !--& imited urisdiction CourtFs Bench Boo 1or Nevada udges, along

ith the !-- "ulement thereto, and hile a ver0 learned udge lie udge 5oard ma0 cite to

"cott v. llinois 1or suort that no such right e+ists here incarceration is not actuall0 e11ectuated, it

clearl0 as here, 1ive da0s orth, comlete ith a I3-- @ill 1or the undersignedFs car @eing toed?,

and 1iles this >otion (o "et /side udge Nash 5olmes *e@ruar0 !7th, !-! "ummar0 Contemt

6rder and also to move 1or a continuance ith resect to the ne+t (rial date that as mentioned hile

the undersigned as in custod0. "ee E+hi@it .

'*A' AR*#M!T

/ellant argues that @0 den0ing his request to cross)e+amine itnesses a@out their otential

@ias, the trial court a@ridged his "i+th /mendment right to con1ront the itnesses against him. Bias

e+ists Mhen a itness has a general illingness or motivation to testi10 1alsel0 on the stand. $ose v.

- 20



21/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8nited "tates, &79 /.!d 9&, 99' HD.C.!--'?. MBias cross)e+amination o1 a main government itness

is ala0s a roer area o1 cross)e+amination and is relevant in assessing the itnessF credi@ilit0 and

evaluating the eight o1 the evidence. Blunt v. 8nited "tates, &3 /.!d &!&, &33 HD.C.!--4?=

accord, "cull v. 8nited "tates, '4 /.!d , ' HD.C.9&9? HMBias is ala0s a roer su@Gect o1

cross)e+amination . and the alleged @ias or unrelia@ilit0 o1 a itness is never a collateral issue

Hcitations omitted??. 6n the other hand, although the Moortunit0 to cross)e+amine adverse itnesses

is an inherent comonent o1 the de1endantFs "i+th /mendment right o1 con1rontation . that right is

su@Gect to reasona@le limits imosed at the discretion o1 the trial Gudge . to revent harassment,

reGudice, con1usion o1 the issues, or reetitive, cumulative, or onl0 marginall0 relevant questioning.

d. at 4 Hcitations omitted?. / Mroer 1oundation is required 1or cross)e+amination to esta@lish

@ias, including a ro11er o1 1acts su11icient to ena@le the court Mto evaluate hether the roosed

question is ro@ative o1 @ias. ones v. 8nited "tates, ' /.!d '3, '7 HD.C.9&?. (he ro11er

must include M Xsome 1acts hich suort a genuine @elie1L that the itness is @iased in the manner

asserted, id. Hcitation omitted?, or at least Ma Xell)reasoned susicionL rather than Xan imro@a@le

1light o1 1anc0L to suort the roosed cross)e+amination. "cull, '4 /.!d at 4 Hquoting 8nited

"tates v. 2ugh, 4 8."./. D.C. &, 7, 43 *.!d !!!, !!' H97-??. (his standard is a 1airl0 lenient

one, and an0 decision a@out the adequac0 o1 the ro11er lies ithin the sound discretion o1 the trial

court. Bron v. 8nited "tates, &3 /.!d &, !4)!' HD.C.99?. *inall0, hen challenging an

adverse ruling on a ro11er o1 itness @ias, an aellant must sho Mthat he as rohi@ited 1rom

engaging in otherise aroriate cross)e+amination designed to sho a rotot0ical 1orm o1 @ias on

the art o1 the itness, and there@0 Xto e+ose to the Gur0 the 1acts 1rom hich Gurors . could

aroriatel0 dra in1erences relating to the relia@ilit0 o1 the itness.L Delaare v. %an /rsdall,

47' 8.". 73, &-, - ".Ct. 43, &9 .Ed.!d 74 H9&? Hcitation omitted?. /ellant argues that

- 21



22/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

he as not a@le to resent to the Gur0 his theor0 o1 de1ense, hich as that the olice lanted the

evidence allegedl0 1ound on or near him in retaliation 1or his ending civil suit, @ecause the trial

court limited his a@ilit0 to cross)e+amine the governmentFs itnesses. Be1ore the trial @egan, de1ense

counsel ro11ered to the court evidence a@out hich he ished to cross)e+amine some o1 the

government itnesses regarding @ias. Counsel e+lained to the court, a1ter the rosecutor o@Gected,

that in an earlier incident 611icers >ason and Branch, ho ere also art o1 the search arrant team,

came to aellantFs home and @roe his arm, and that as a result aellant 1iled suit.4 De1ense counsel

stated: SBTased on all o1 those 1actors, hether or not the0 sa0 the0 ne the o11icers or not, hether

or not the0 taled StoT the o11icers or not, it seems to us that a @ias issue e+ists, and the Court should

ermit this and let the Gur0 decide. S(The Gur0 can sort out hether or not this in1ormation someho

got to eole ho ere art o1 the arrest SteamT, and arrested the de1endant. ' (he court ruled: n this

case there is no relevance at all @ecause the o11icers that are testi10ing)each one o1 them no has told

us that the0 had no idea a@out the rior incident, the notice or the lasuit, on the da0 o1 the arrest o1

>r. 5oard in this case. (o allo testimon0 a@out that searate incident that these o11icers didnFt

even no a@out ould @e con1using, misleading, and reGudicial, and Fm not going to allo it. t

aears to us that the court mistaenl0 alied a re)trial credi@ilit0 1inding, on hich it had relied to

decide the issue o1 ro@a@le cause, to the searate determination o1 the trial)related issue o1 hether

the de1endant had ro11ered su11icient 1acts to arrant cross)e+amination on otential @ias. /t the

suression hearing, the court had concluded that 611icer $andolh, ho reared the search arrant

alication, did not no o1 the ending civil suit and had not @een directed @0 611icer Branch or

611icer >ason to get a search arrant 1or aellantFs home, so the arrant as valid. (his 1inding,

hoever, did not 1oreclose the de1ense trial theor0 that the o11icers at the scene ere @iased @ecause

o1 the lasuit or ma0 have @een imroerl0 in1luenced @0 611icer Branch Hho as in the room

- 22



23/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hen the drugs ere 1ound on aellant? or 611icer >ason Hho as art o1 the search team?, and

intentionall0 imlicated aellant even though Haccording to the de1ense? no drugs ere actuall0

1ound on his erson. C1. "ullivan v. 8nited "tates, 4-4 /.!d '3, - HD.C.979? HMSgTreat latitude is

aroriatel0 e+tended to a shoing o1 a comlaining itnessF @ias @0 means o1 cross)e+amination

concerning that itnessF ending lasuit versus the de1endant against hom he has testi1ied @ecause

the lasuit is Mrelevant to a shoing o1 . his ill)ill toard the de1endant Hcitations omitted??.

/lthough the trial court 1ound, at the suression hearing, that 611icer $andolh as credi@le and did

not no o1 the lasuit at the time he o@tained the search arrant or the at the time o1 its e+ecution,

and thus concluded that the arrant as valid, it as not u to the court to determine the credi@ilit0

o1 itnesses at trial regarding their otential @ias. "ee Neman v. 8nited "tates, 7-' /.!d !4, !'9

HD.C.997? HMn evaluating the relia@ilit0 o1 the ro11er . the court must not see to evaluate the

relia@ilit0 o1 the itness?. Desite the courtFs assessment o1 the o11icersF credi@ilit0 in ruling on the

validit0 o1 the arrant at the suression hearing, it as error to rel0 on that credi@ilit0 determination

to reclude @ias cross)e+amination at trial @ecause MScTonditioning @ias cross)e+amination on the

courtFs a@ilit0 to assess the credi@ilit0 o1 the source o1 the alleged motive runs too close to usuring

the Gur0Fs 1unction. Bron v. 8nited "tates, 74- /.!d '33, '37 HD.C.999?. /t trial, de1ense counsel

sought to cross)e+amine some o1 the olice itnesses a@out their noledge o1 the civil suit against

the olice deartment and to as them hether that noledge in1luenced the e+ecution o1 the search

arrant. Counsel ro11ered 1acts hich suggested that the itnesses might @e @iased in the manner

asserted: that 611icers Branch and >ason had reviousl0 @een involved in an incident in hich

aellantFs arm as @roen, that the same o11icers H1rom the "i+th District? ere resent at the

e+ecution o1 the search arrant hich resulted in aellantFs arrest, and that aellant had 1iled a civil

suit against the olice deartment, as ell as 611icers Branch and >ason. (hese 1acts suorted at

- 23



24/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

least Ma ell)reasoned susicion that the o11icers involved in the e+ecution o1 the search arrant, all

1rom the "i+th District, ma0 have had a motive to testi10 1alsel0, or at least to stretch the truth,

regarding the seiJure o1 drugs 1rom aellant. "ince "ergeant


25/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cannot 1ind harmless error under Chaman v. Cali1ornia, 3& 8.". &, !4, &7 ".Ct. &!4, 7 .Ed.!d

7-' H97?. "ee %an /rsdall, 47' 8.". at &4, - ".Ct. 43 Hthe denial o1 a de1endantFs oortunit0

to imeach a itness 1or @ias is su@Gect to Chaman harmless error anal0sis?. (he 1act that the

de1ense as alloed to resent testimon0 @0 ester 5oard that he did not see an0 drugs recovered

1rom aellant and that he and aellant ere a@used @0 the olice does not alleviate the harm o1

rohi@iting the relevant and distinct @ias testimon0 a@out the itnessesF noledge o1 the lasuit. ;e

reached a similar conclusion in "cull, in hich e held that it as not harmless error 1or the trial

court to reclude the cross)e+amination o1 itnesses as to relevant @ias H1ear o1 their on

rosecution? even though it alloed other cross)e+amination o1 the same itnesses as to @ias

stemming 1rom a di11erent motivation. M"ince the issue o1 this roosed cross)e+amination as

entirel0 distinct 1rom that alloed @0 the trial court, central to the Gur0Fs evaluation o1 the credi@ilit0

o1 e0 itnesses, and admissi@le, its e+clusion as constitutional error. '4 /.!d at . "ee also

Davis, 4' 8.". at 3&, 94 ".Ct. -' HM;hile counsel as ermitted to as Sthe itnessT hether he

as @iased, counsel as una@le to mae a record 1rom hich to argue h0 Sthe itnessT might have

@een @iased or otherise laced that degree o1 imartialit0 e+ected o1 a itness at trial?. (here1ore,

the error cannot @e deemed harmless @e0ond a reasona@le dou@t. /ellant also argues that the

trial court should not have ermitted "ergeant otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


26/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

curative admissi@ilit0. "ee


27/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

*ederal aeals court reverses decision holding olice chie1 and o11icers lia@le 1or alleged retaliator0 investigation

$aovich v. ;ade, &'- *.!d &- H7th Cir. 9&&?.

2rocedural: Evidence

(rial GudgeFs re1usal to allo a lainti11 in an e+cessive 1orce lasuit to cross e+amine the

de1endant o11icer regarding his rior disciline and conduct, hich allegedl0 ould have shon that

he as ha@ituall0 dishonest in his Go@, resulting in his resignation, as an a@use o1 discretion,

requiring a ne trial on claims against the o11icer. (he e+cessive 1orce claim against him revolved

around an issue o1 his credi@ilit0, so that @arring this evidence as not harmless. /s 1or claims

against the cit0, alleged negligent monitoring o1 an o11icer cannot @e the @asis o1 a 1ederal civil rights

claim, and the lainti11 1ailed to esta@lish an0 inadequate training @0 the cit0 on use o1 1orce or

roviding required medical care. 5inoGosa v. Butler, No. -7)'-', !--& 8.". /. e+is !!!&! H'th

Cir.?.

;hen a trial GudgeFs instructions a@out the legal standard 1or e+cessive use o1 1orce ere correct,

the GudgeFs error concerning instructions a@out the roer use o1 a olice investigatorFs reort

concerning the shooting o1 a susect ere harmless. (he reort, containing statements the shooting

o11icer made to a suervisor a1ter the shooting, hile hearsa0 ithin hearsa0 could have roerl0

@een considered as admissions @0 a art0)oonent in the lasuit. (he trial court had, hoever,

alloed the reort to @e entered into evidence, and the statements in the reort ere mostl0 use1ul 1or

uroses o1 imeachment. /s the lainti11Fs attorne0 used the statements 1or that urose, an0 error in

instructions concerning the use o1 the reort ere harmless. /licea v. $alston, No. -)4'!, !--&

8.". /. e+is -73 H8nu@. 3rd Cir.?.

2ortions o1 a reort @0 a olice deartmentFs nternal nvestigations "ection hich concluded that

o11icers detaining a man did so ithout reasona@le susicion or ro@a@le cause, used e+cessive 1orce,

- 27



28/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and ithheld medical treatment as relevant evidence under *ed. $. Evidence 4-, and ortions o1

the reort ere admissi@le as an investigative reort under *ed. $. Evid. &-3H&?HC?. (he court,

hoever, granted the cit0Fs motion to e+clude ortions o1 the reort consisting o1 intervies o1 1our

e0eitnesses Hhich it 1ound constituted dou@le hearsa0?, and the legal conclusion o1 the cit0Fs

chie1 la0er. Noell v. Cit0 o1 Cincinnati, No. :-3cv&'9, !-- 8.". Dist. e+is &&! H".D. 6hio?.

SNK$T

n arresteeFs lasuit against state trooer 1or alleged e+cessive 1orce used against him during the

arrest, evidence that the trooer had 1ailed a ol0grah test given on unrelated criminal charges

@rought against him as not admissi@le as evidence, and evidence o1 those unrelated criminal charges

ere also not relevant to the issue o1 hether the trooer had used e+cessive 1orce. ur0 verdict in

1avor o1 trooer uheld on aeal. Coo v. "tate Det. o1 2u@lic "a1et0, No. !--' C/ -47', 9!& "o.

!d '&9 Ha. /. !--?. SNK$T

n a lasuit @0 an arrestee claiming that o11icers used e+cessive 1orce against him, even i1 the

deartmentFs rules esta@lishing rocedures 1or resonding to domestic violence calls as relevant in

some sense, the trial Gudge did not a@use his discretion in e+cluded it 1rom evidence, @ecause it had

the otential to con1use or mislead the Gur0 concerning the issues in the case. $u11in v. Cit0 o1

Boston, No. -3)!-!, 4 *ed. /+. '- Hst Cir. !--'?. SNK$T

Evidence o1 threats that an arrestee allegedl0 made @e1ore his arrest, hich ere rela0ed to the

o11icers ho arrived on the scene ere admissi@le in e+cessive 1orce lasuit to sho o11icersF reason

1or entering a house ith their eaons dran and immediatel0 rolling him 1rom the so1a to the 1loor

to handcu11 him. otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


29/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

*ederal aeals court overturns Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 la en1orcement de1endants ho allegedl0

inter1ered ith the e11orts o1 rivate ersons to rescue a man ho Gumed into a river, and 1ailed to

o11er a reasona@le alternative rescue service. Court holds that cumulative)error doctrine should

al0 to civil cases, and that a ne trial as required @ecause o1 a num@er o1 evidentiar0 errors made

@0 the trial court. Bec v. 5ai, No. -)!7!3 !--4 8.". /. e+is ''9- Hth Cir.?. S!--4 $ "eT

n a lasuit against a ton 1or the death o1 a motorist hose vehicle as struc @0 an o11icerFs car

the nature o1 the call that the o11icer as resonding to at the time as relevant to determining

hether the o11icer acted in recless disregard o1 the sa1et0 o1 others, and there1ore as admissi@le.

/llen v. (on o1 /mherst, 77& N..".!d '9& H/.D. 4th Det. !--4?. SNK$T

2lainti11 ho as shot @0 olice o11icer could not ithhold his medical records in a 1ederal civil

rights lasuit against the cit0 and o11icer on the @asis o1 doctor)atient rivilege or medical records

rivilege, nor could he assert the right o1 rivac0 @ased on a rovision o1 the Cali1ornia state

constitution to revent the disclosure o1 those records. (he lainti11, ho claimed that he as shot in

the @ac @ecause the o11icer as in oor h0sical condition and as there1ore una@le to ursue him

on 1oot, as also entitled in the case to the disclosure o1 the o11icerFs medical records, including those

in a orersF comensation 1ile. 5utton v. Cit0 o1 >artineJ, !9 *.$.D. 4 HN.D. Cal. !--3?. SNK$T

/rrestee could not success1ull0 see damages @ased merel0 on a custodial interrogation ithout

>irada arnings hen none o1 her elicited statements ere ever used against her at trial. *ederal

aeals court also overturns I&-,--- malicious rosecution aard to arrestee, ho claimed that

o11icers 1iled 1alse charges against her and maliciousl0 ursued them in order to assist her o11icer

@o01riend, ho she accused o1 domestic a@use. 2lainti11Fs oening statement at trial ut the question

o1 the de1endant o11icerFs truth1ul character into issue, so it as reGudicial error to e+clude evidence

o1 that character. $enda v. Aing, #-)!4!, 347 *.3d ''- H3rd Cir. !--3?. S!--4 $ *e@T

- 29



30/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

n case here elderl0 coule challenged the validit0 o1 search arrant 1or their home, de1endants

could @e required to either roduce a con1idential in1ormant 1or an in cham@ers deosition, to

reveal his identit0, or to convince the court that, 1or reasons o1 sa1et0, his identit0 need not @e

revealed. n the alternative, the de1endants could @e @arred 1rom resenting an0 evidence at trial

@ased on the alleged e+istence o1 the in1ormant. "mith v. Cit0 o1 Detroit, No. -)7-74-, !! *.$.D.

'-7 HE.D. >ich. !--3?. S!--3 $ /ugT

/dmission into evidence o1 a videotae shoing the lainti11 conducting her dail0 activities

during a trial o1 her claim that she had su11ered serious inGuries 1rom the e+cessive use o1 1orce @0 a

olice o11icer as not imroer and did not constitute un1air surrise hen the lainti11Fs attorne0

as 1urnished ith a co0 and given a chance to vie it rior to its admission. >eiselman v. B0rom,

!-7 *. "u. !d 4- HE.D.N.. !--!?. SNK$T

/dmission into evidence o1 an audiotae o1 an arresteeFs conversation ith a olice disatcher as

not an a@use o1 discretion in a 1ederal civil rights case in hich the arrestee claimed that she had @een

imroerl0 arrested 1or u@lic into+ication. (he audiotaeFs reroduction o1 the arresteeFs h0sterical

conversation ith the disatcher as no more reGudicial than the arresting o11icerFs account o1

her drunen @ehavior, so that the court could not sa0 that its admission as so reGudicial that it

violated the lainti11Fs su@stantial rights. Diamond v. 5od, #--)3!3, !&& *.3d 93! Hth Cir.

!--!?. SNK$T

ur0 as resumed to have 1olloed trial GudgeFs instructions that la0ersF statements and

arguments ere not evidence, so that alleged misconduct @0 de1endant olice o11icersF la0er in

giving in1erence to the Gur0 a@out items not in evidence during closing arguments as insu11icient to

suort a reversal o1 the Gur0Fs verdict 1or the de1endants in a homeonerFs 1ederal civil rights lasuit

- 30



31/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

over alleged unreasona@le search o1 her house under a arrant. ones v. ;illiams, #--)'9!9, 3'

*ed. /+. 4!4 H9th Cir. !--!?. SNK$T

"tate trooers destro0ed taes relating to an incident in good 1aith ursuant to normal ractices

@e1ore an0 litigation as ending, and additionall0, the lainti11s received transcrits o1 the taes, so

that there could @e no adverse in1erence as to soilation o1 evidence in an arresteeFs claim 1or

inGuries. /rrestee could not collect damages 1or his 1all and craced sull hile restrained at the

olice station 1olloing his arrest 1or driving hile into+icated, @ased on testimon0 @0 lainti11Fs on

e+ert itness that he as roerl0 restrained, and that, hile there ere alternative restraining

methods, the0 osed their on riss. $a0mond v. "tate, 74- N..".!d 743 H/.D. !--!?. SNK$T

2lainti11 arresteeFs rior histor0 o1 drining ha@its, onershi o1 guns, and use o1 rescrition

drugs as roerl0 admitted into evidence hen the lainti11 ansered questions on those issues on

cross)e+amination ithout o@Gections. (rial GudgeFs comments a@out arrestee acting as his on

la0er in 1alse arrest lasuit did not require a ne trial. 6FBrien v. ohnson, &-- "o. !d 4 Ha. /.

4th Cir. !--?. SNK$T

34':4- *iling o1 rong1ul death claim !& da0s a1ter arrestee died gave count0 and sheri11Fs

deartment actual notice that it should not destro0 audio taes o1 9 calls and radio transmissions

concerning incident= Cali1ornia aeals court orders 1urther hearings to determine hether sanctions

against de1endants in lasuit are aroriate. Nelson v. "uerior Court, #B47-7, -7 Cal. $tr. !d

49 HCal. /. !--?.

34':4 Evidence that susect, a arolee, ossessed a gun at the time o11icers tried to detain him

on susicion o1 auto the1t, as admissi@le in his lasuit against o11icers 1or shooting and ounding

him= it as relevant as tending to suort the o11icersF version o1 the incident that he used his vehicle

- 31



32/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as a eaon to endanger them in his deseration to escae, Gusti10ing their use o1 deadl0 1orce.

"tevenson v. D.C. >etroolitan 2olice Det., !4& *.3d &7 HD.C. Cir. !--?.

343:-' ntroduction o1 evidence o1 arresteeFs later second arrest 1or domestic violence as no

@asis, in the a@sence o1 roer o@Gection, 1or setting aside Gur0Fs verdict in 1avor o1 arresting o11icers

on his 1alse arrestKe+cessive 1orce claims. 8dem@a v. Nicoli, #--)!4, !37 *.3d & Hst Cir. !--?.

SNK$T Evidence suorted Gur0Fs verdict in 1avor o1 o11icers on 1alse arrest claim. Even i1 o11icer

as tresassing on arresteeFs @usiness roert0, the lainti11Fs action in slamming the door on the

o11icerFs hand as an unreasona@le use o1 1orce hich could suort his arrest 1or @atter0. (rial court

erroneousl0 denied de1endantFs request 1or I!7,--- in costs 1or comuteriJed evidence used 1or

resentation to Gur0, 1urther hearings on reasona@leness required. Ce1alu v. %illage o1 El


33/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1ederal civil rights lasuit over o11icerFs detention o1 them 1olloing a vehicle sto and search o1

their ossessions= introduction o1 evidence ould also @e reGudicial= state la emotional distress

claim did not alter result. "ultin v. Bushnell, &! *."u. !d !'& HD. 8tah !---?.

334:'- *ederal aeals court uholds Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 o11icer ho used olice dog to

su@due an auto the1t susect= lainti11Fs to rior 1elon0 convictions, @ased on no contest leas, ere

roerl0 used to imeach his testimon0= lainti11 as not entitled to an e+licit Gur0 instruction

concerning alternative courses o1 action availa@le to the o11icer or the o11icerFs alleged lac o1

ro@a@le cause to @elieve that the lainti11 as armed. Breer v. Cit0 o1 Naa, #9&)4-, !- *.3d

-93 H9th Cir. !---?.

SNK$T E+clusion o1 nonart0 olice o11icersF testimon0 hich as consistent ith lainti11Fs

version o1 incident in hich he as mistaenl0 arehended @0 de1endant o11icers in grocer0 store

as not harmless, hen detaineeFs rincial e0eitness could @e vieed as unersuasive @ecause o1

her alleged @ias against olice. ;asserman v. Bartholome, No. ")&!3&, 9&7 2. !d 74& H/lasa

999?.

3!7:39 611icer as legall0 Gusti1ied in shooting and illing a man advancing toards to o11icers

ith a ni1e held to his on throat ho had reviousl0 sta@@ing his @rother= the 1act that he osed a

threat to the o11icers rendered irrelevant an0 evidence o1 ossi@le alternate strategies o11icers might

have used rior to that oint, or evidence concerning the o11icerFs ast discilinar0 records or cit0 use

o1 1orce olic0. ello@ac v. Cit0 o1 "iou+ *alls, #!-79, -- N.;.!d ''4 H".D. 999?.

3!7:43 /eals court uholds Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 olice o11icers in lasuit over alleged

ositional ash0+ia in case here the0 used neeling ristloc on distur@ed man to tae him into

rotective custod0= use o1 courtroom demonstration o1 neeling ristloc technique as roerl0

admitted into evidence. ones v. $alls, #9&)3'4, &7 *.3d &4& H&th Cir. 999?.

- 33



34/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33-:&3 Deut0 roerl0 used deadl0 1orce against man advancing on him ith a iece o1 concrete

in his hand= sheri11Fs 1ailure to train deuties in the use o1 deadl0 1orce against craJ0 eole as no

@asis 1or lia@ilit0 hen general olic0 on use o1 deadl0 1orce as correct and no shoing o1 a rior

ro@lem in this area as shon= @asis 1or e+clusion o1 e+ert itness as erroneous, @ut Gur0 did not

need e+ert hel to conclude that deut0 acted reasona@l0. 2ena v. eom@runi, No. 99)43', !--

*.3d -3 H7th Cir. 999?.

33-:&4 ur0 roerl0 heard evidence o1 alleged a11air @eteen ma0or and arresteeFs i1e, and trial

court roerl0 declined to instruct Gur0 that arrestee had a dut0 to su@mit to an arrest ithout

resistance even i1 it as unGusti1ied= aeals court uholds aards totaling I4,--- against olice

chie1 and ma0or in lasuit claiming that imroer arrest as made ith e+cessive 1orce @ased on a

urel0 ersonal disute @eteen ma0or and arrestee.


35/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

does not constitute a aiver o1 theraist)atient rivilege?= and three cases in hich an imlied

aiver as 1ound, *o+ v. (he


36/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

imrisonment and malicious rosecution= suit claimed that con1ession to olice as rocured through

rior taed conversations ith minister ho allegedl0 1ed susect details o1 crime= e+clusion o1

taes 1rom evidence as reversi@le error. "utieicJ v. >onroe Count0 "heri11, - *.3d 3'! Hth

Cir. 997?.

3-:' 2lainti11 in e+cessive 1orce case against olice involving ositional ash0+ia could not

comel deosition o1 de1endantsF la0er regarding his ersonal noledge o1 the dangers o1

ositional ash0+ia hen lainti11 1ailed to sho that in1ormation as uno@taina@le through other

means, relevant and non)rivileged, and crucial to rearation o1 the case. ones v. Bd. o1 2olice

ComFrs o1 Aansas Cit0, >o., 7 *.$.D. !' H;.D. >o. 997?.

!9:!4 n suit over o11)dut0 o11icerFs shooting o1 assenger in stoed vehicle, trial court did not

err in e+cluding evidence o1 rior incident in hich same o11icer shot a susect 1rom another stoed

vehicle or in e+cluding evidence o1 /C2 model olicies concerning tra11ic stos @0 o11)dut0

o11icers, hen issue as not hether sto as roer, @ut hether use o1 1orce against assenger

once sto as made as e+cessive "oller v. >oore, &4 *.3d 94 H7th Cir. 99?.

!&7:7! 611icer as imroerl0 @arred 1rom testi10ing as e+ert itness as to hether sheri11Fs

alleged 1ailure to train deuties on roer retrieval and use o1 shotguns stored in loced truns o1

cruisers created unsa1e oring conditions= summar0 Gudgment 1or de1endant sheri11 and count0

overturned in suit @rought @0 deut0 shot @0 assailant hile attemting to retrieve shotgun 1rom trun

angum, 4 ".E.!d 7 H;.%a. 99'?.

!&':37 Cit0 and mental health agenc0 as not lia@le 1or o11icerFs shooting o1 aranoid

schiJohrenic as he e+ited his @edroom, allegedl0 advancing on o11icer ith hatchet raised=

de1endants adequatel0 e+lained reasons 1or striing to @lac Gurors, and trial Gudge correctl0

- 36



37/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e+cluded evidence hich as not relevant to the case at hand >cAeel v. Cit0 o1 2ine Blu11, 73 *.3d

!-7 H&th Cir, 99?.

!79:3& E+ert itness testimon0 on hedonic damages Hthe enGo0ment value o1 human li1e?.

@arred @0 trial court in lasuit over olice shooting o1 individual /0ers v. $o@inson, &&7 *."u.

-49 HN.D.ll. 99'?.

!&!:&4 Drug evidence 1rom house e+cluded at criminal trial @ecause o1 illegalit0 o1 search as

roerl0 introduced into evidence in civil de1amation lasuit @rought @0 resident against olice chie1

ho allegedl0 told his emlo0er he as a drug dealer= Ne 5amshire "ureme Court declines to

al0 e+clusionar0 rule in civil de1amation suit "imins v. (on o1 Bartlett, /.!d 77! HN5

99'?.

!&:47 8.". "ureme Court adots theraist)atient rivilege rotecting disclosures during

thera0 sessions 1rom comelled disclosure in court= a11irms ordering o1 ne trial in hich Gur0

aarded I'4',--- in olice shooting case here Gur0 as told it could resume ithheld thera0

records ould @e un1avora@le to o11icer a11ee v. /llen, ".Ct. 9!3 H99?.

YNK$ "tatement on 9 tae hich allegedl0 descri@ed o11icerFs @eating o1 lainti11 as not

admissi@le into evidence in a@sence o1 an0 shoing that the erson maing the descrition had a 1irst

hand noledge o1 hat he descri@ed Bemis v. Edards, 4' *.3d 39 H9th Cir. 99'?.

YNK$ t as not an a@use o1 discretion to re1use to allo itnesses ho ere not disclosed in

lainti11Fs retrial list o1 itnesses to testi10= cit0 olice deartment ritten olicies ere not relevant

in roving arresteeFs claims against cit0 >arti v. Cit0 o1 >aleood, >o, '7 *.3d &- H&th Cir.

99'?.

!9:7 (ae recording o1 arrest and alleged @eating o1 arrestee hich revealed that o11icer

directed a racial eithet at arrestee should have @een admitted into evidence as it as relevant to the

- 37



38/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gur0Fs tas o1 deciding hether 1orce used as reasona@le under the circumstances= aeals court

rules that e+clusion o1 this ortion o1 tae as an a@use o1 discretion requiring a ne trial in civil

rights suit @rought @0 arrestee Bron v. Cit0 o1 5ialeah, 3- *.3d 433 Hth Cir. 994?.

!9:74 Evidence o1 lainti11Fs rior criminal convictions as roerl0 admitted into evidence

during his cross)e+amination hen his direct testimon0 oened the door to the evidence Duncan v.

;ells, !3 *.3d 3!! H&th Cir. 994?.

!7!:! De1endant olice o11icers had the right, in arresteeFs 1ederal civil rights e+cessive 1orce

suit against them, to cross)e+amine arrestee regarding his rior 1elon0 convictions during ast ten

0ears= cross)e+amination regarding 1elon0 convictions older than ten 0ears @arred as undul0

reGudicial Charles v. Cotter, &7 *."u. 4& HN.D.ll. 994?.

Erroneous admission o1 narcotics in1ormerFs hearsa0 statements into evidence as not harmless

and required reversal o1 Gur0 verdict in 1avor o1 arrestee in civil rights suit against narcotics agent

ia0 v. Christos, 99 *.!d 49- H3rd Cir. 993?.

(rial court roerl0 admitted certi1ied records o1 lainti11Fs ro@@er0 and ossession o1 concealed

eaons convictions into evidence, as ell as evidence o1 his conviction o1 2C2 drug to imeach his

statements, including statments that he had never used 2C2


39/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

used to sho o11icersF alleged retaliator0 motive 1or arresting him $o@@ins v. Cit0 o1 >iami Beach,

3 "o.!d '&- H*la /. 993?.

uestions concerning lainti11Fs rior 1elon0 convictions ere clearl0 roer 1or uroses o1

imeaching his truth1ulness as a itness= questions concerning his current incarceration, hile

generall0 inadmissi@le 1or imeachment uroses, ere alloa@le 1or the urose o1 re1uting his

claim that it as the de1endant o11icersF actions that led to his negative ercetion o1 la

en1orcement otion to "et /side 6rder to "ho Cause= or alternativel0, >otion to Continue or "ta0 5earing on6rder to "ho Cause 2ending the $esolution o1 the Criminal (resass >atter


40/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

n @rutalit0 suit against o11icer, 5aaii sureme court admits evidence o1 other rongs he

committed and character evidence shoing roensit0 1or violence >e0er v. Cit0 and Count0 o1

5onolulu, 73 2.!d 49 H5aaii 9&?.

/rgersinger v. 5amlin H4-7 8.". !'? esta@lishes that the right to the assistance o1 counsel,

hether retained or court aointed, is required in all rosecutions hich ma0 result in

imrisonment, unless a comlete *aretta canvas has @een comleted and the request 1or aiving

counsel is granted.

;hile there is a time and lace, erhas 1or 6rders 1inding "ummar0 Contemt under N$"

!!.-3-...erhas, the greatest strength a Gudge can demonstrate is the a@ilit0 to sho a little eaness

to demonstrate something other than ruling ith an iron hand, to do something other than crush an0

voice o1 dissent in her court. (o strangle out o1 litigants the 1reedom to Jealousl0 adovocate on their

on or anotherFs @ehal1 Hin the case o1 licensed attorne0s? is erhas the most heinous, sad, and ugl0

thing a Gudge could do. / Gudge hom demonstrates an a@ilit0 to oversee that hich maes her less

than com1orta@le in her courtroom, that hich she does not necessaril0 agree ith, is a Gudge secure

in hher a@ilities and aare o1 the remium on restraint and atience called 1or in order 1or a Gudge and

court to transcend 1rom mere de@t collector 1or the Cit0 /ttorne0 to imartial ar@iter o1 1act and la.

(o demonstrate otherise ma0 create an atmoshere here court emlo0ees overste their @ounds

and @egin to @ull0 and harass those seeing to access Gustice, a true violation o1 the trust in hich the

u@lic endos such u@lic servants. Even erhas, here >arshals are a@le to hiser into 6rmasFs

ear, in oen court, then here the undersigned needs to use the restroom, the Court 6rders him to

leave his notead in the courtroom, then the udnersigned is summaril0 interrogated @0 the Court 1rom

the Bench in some a0 a@out devices lie he is a ma1ia in1ormant @eing rundon @0 the Don, then

the undersigned is arrested, stri searched, has his roert0 con1iscated. /nd its imortant roert0,

- 40



41/47

1

2

3

4

5

6

Documents

3 7 12 0204 1708 Mtn Set Aside Order to Show Cause, Continue Stay Hearing CV11-03628-2753310 (Mtn Alter or Amend Judgment)