Opinion ID: 1162726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Kennard Incident

Text: At the formal hearing, the commission admitted into evidence a certified copy of a transcript of criminal proceedings conducted in appellant's court on October 8, 1986. That transcript discloses the following: THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, that noise you hear is someone on the roof. Bailiff, you will telephone immediately and have the head of maintenance in my office awaiting my pleasure. Proceed, counsel. MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. ... . THE COURT: Mr. Roger, you will get the head of maintenance and bring him in here now. He is on the bench outside. Will you state your name, please? MR. KENNARD: Gary Kennard, K-E-N-N-A-R-D THE COURT: What is your position with the County of Clark? MR. KENNARD: Maintenance superintendent. THE COURT: All right. Do you hear a noise up on the roof? MR. KENNARD: Yes, I do. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kennard, that is unforgivable. This is a murder case. Indeed it could be any kind of case. There is no such thing as a small case. I find the department of maintenance to be in direct contempt of the Court and you as the superintendent [sic] to be in direct contempt of the Court. You are, therefore, in custody, sir  have a seat up there  for 20 days in the Clark County jail. Have a seat in the box right there. Mr. Roger, you will be in charge of this individual. MR. ROGER: Yes, sir. Appellant testified at the formal commission hearing that, although Mr. Kennard was initially taken to jail and incarcerated, appellant later ordered his release after appellant ascertained that his (appellant's) actions had gotten [the] attention of county officials. Moreover, appellant insisted in his commission testimony that he had accorded Mr. Kennard his full right to be heard according to law. See Nev. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(A)(4). [26] Specifically, in response to questioning from the special prosecutor as to whether appellant's conduct conformed to Canon 3(A)(4), appellant testified that he gave Mr. Kennard the hearing accorded by law for direct contempt. [27] Based upon this testimony and evidence, the commission found that appellant abused the contempt power vested in him by holding the Clark County Department of Maintenance and the Superintendent of that department in direct contempt of court because of construction noise on the roof of the courthouse.