Opinion ID: 2612525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sanctions for attorney misconduct.

Text: The prosecutor, Dan Seaton, made three improper arguments to the jury. In all three instances the case law was unambiguous that such remarks were not permitted. Mr. Seaton is a veteran prosecutor and knows very well that these remarks were improper. This case is not the first time we have dealt with improper arguments made to a jury by Mr. Seaton. [1] Time after time we say, as we did, for example, in Santillanes, 104 Nev. at 702, 765 P.2d at 1149, [w]e agree that Mr. Seaton's remarks were improper; however we do not believe a reversal is warranted in this case. We say it again here. However, there is no reason why these issues should be continually presented to us by the misconduct of one experienced prosecutor. Rather than deal with the appropriate sanction that should be levied against Mr. Seaton, we refer this case to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of Nevada for review and appropriate action.