Opinion ID: 1188955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: attorney general del papa's disqualifying misconduct in this case

Text: Even if the Dissent were correct in saying that there are no constitutional or conflict-of-interest bars to the Attorney General's continuing to act in the role of legal advisor and prosecutor in this case, I believe that there is another independent basis for disqualification of Attorney General Del Papa in the Whitehead case. Attorney General Del Papa should not be permitted to act as counsel in any capacity in this case, because she has displayed such animus, such a publicly-proclaimed antipathy toward the defendant judge in this case that she has rendered herself and her office unsuitable and incapacitated to serve as a prosecutorial advocate in the judicial discipline case involving Judge Whitehead. The Attorney General appears to have forgotten that her primary duty is not to convict, but to see that justice is done and that cases must be tried in the courtroom rather than in the media. Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 110, 111, 734 P.2d 700, 703 (citations omitted). The Attorney General's running public comments on this case display a continuous effort to influence public opinion against Judge Whitehead. Not only is this conduct ethically unacceptable, it is in direct violation of ARJD 8. [8] ARJD 8 is a very clear and explicit court rule which has been flouted by the Attorney General. This rule expressly commands that all counsel in judicial discipline matters, at all times, refrain from engaging in any private or public discussion which relates to the merits of any judicial discipline matter or which might prejudice a [judge's] reputation or rights to due process. (Emphasis added.) For most of the time that this case has been pending the Attorney General has been engaging in public discussion[s] of one kind or another about the case, saying over and over again that Judge Whitehead was charged with serious misconduct and issuing public statements that rather clearly violate ARJD 8. Rather than attempting to catalogue the various violations of ARJD 8, I will rely in making my point on one very obvious and, may I say, flagrant example of the manner in which Attorney General Del Papa has defied this court rule. The Attorney General's press release of January 31, 1994, epitomizes her refusal to abide by the rules. In this statewide press release, issued to all public news media sources, the Attorney General publicly accuses the judge of lying (misrepresentation), slander (smearing others) and tampering with the justice system (going around and above the law). [9] The Attorney General has waged a public opinion war against Judge Whitehead and in public statements and press releases has repeatedly attempted to try her case in the media. The January 31 release is probably the worst and most undeniable example of the Attorney General's misconduct. Presumably the Attorney General is aware of the contents of ARJD 8 and aware that she is obliged to refrain from such public... discussion[s] and that she must not do or say anything that will prejudice a [judge's] reputation or rights to due process. Can anyone doubt that publicly calling a judge a liar or slanderer or publicly accusing a judge of going around and above the law does not prejudice the judge's reputationespecially when such statements go to every news source in the state and are made by none other than the Attorney General of the State of Nevada? Can anyone doubt that Judge Whitehead's due process rights before the Commission have not been damaged by the Attorney General's conduct? It may be that notwithstanding the history of this case there is some possibility that Judge Whitehead might somehow be afforded due process in the future, I do not know; but one thing is clear and that is that, given the damage that Attorney General Del Papa has done to Judge Whitehead's reputation and the prejudicial effect that damage necessarily has had on Judge Whitehead's due process rights, we cannot, entirely apart from any consideration of constitutional incapacity or conflict of interest, allow Attorney General Del Papa to continue to act in any capacity in this case. The Attorney General's misconduct, by itself, and independent of the two grounds stated in the Majority Opinion, requires that she be removed from any contact with this case at once. In Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 646 P.2d 1219 (1982), we recognized that the disqualification of a prosecutor's office rests with the sound discretion of the district court and that [i]n exercising that discretion, [the court] should consider all the facts and circumstances and determine whether the prosecutorial function could be carried out impartially.... Id. at 309-10, 646 P.2d at 1220 (citations omitted). I cannot imagine how the Attorney General, who has also been acting as both Judge Whitehead's prosecutor and the Judicial Commission's legal counsel, can, given the pattern of her manner of handling this case and the inexcusable issuance of the press release of January 31, 1994, possibly be able to carry out the prosecutorial function impartially in this case. I do not see how it can be denied that the Attorney General is clearly unable to act impartially with regard to a man whom she called desperate and whom she has publicly branded as a liar and slanderer who is trying to escape his just deserts by going around and above the law. In my opinion, her flagrant violation of court rules, her public comments on a pending judicial discipline case, and her prejudicial public statements against Judge Whitehead all combine to deny Judge Whitehead any possibility of receiving fair treatment and due process for so long as Attorney General Del Papa, her staff or her special prosecutor have anything to do with this case. I would disqualify her on this ground alone. I am not ready at this time to pass judgment on what penalties should be meted out as a result of the Attorney General's flouting of ARJD 8, but I am convinced that her actions relative to this case disqualify her from proceeding another day as the prosecutor or in any other capacity on this case.