Ethical Considerations - Footnotes

[1]

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons 65-66 (Random House 1962).

[2]

See, e.g., American Bar Association (ABA) Prosecution Function Standards (3d Ed. 1993); National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) National Prosecution Standards (2d Ed. 1991).

[3]

295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935), cited in Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 110, 734 P.2d 700, 703 (1987); see also RPC 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of Prosecutor); ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-1.2 (3d Ed. 1993); NDAA National Prosecution Standard § 1.1 (2d Ed. 1991).

[4]

Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985); see also NDAA National Prosecution Standards §§ 42.1 and 43.1 (2d Ed. 1991). NDAA National Prosecution Standard § 1.3 provides that “[t]he prosecutor . . . must place the rights of society in a paramount position in exercising prosecutorial discretion.”

[5]

ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-3.9(a) (3d Ed. 1993); NDAA National Prosecution Standard § 43.3 (2d Ed. 1991); see also ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8 cmt. 1 (2002).

[6]

Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. at 608.

[7]

ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-3.9(f) (3d Ed. 1993); NDAA National Prosecution Standard § 43.2 (2d Ed. 1991).

[8]

ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-3.9(b) (3d Ed. 1993); NDAA National Prosecution Standards §§ 42.3, 42.4, and § 43.6 (2d Ed. 1991).

[9]

Victims of crime have a constitutional right to be:

  • Informed, upon written request, of the status or disposition of a criminal proceeding at any stage of the proceeding;
  • Present at all public hearings involving the critical stages of a criminal proceeding; and
  • Heard at all proceedings for the sentencing or release of a convicted person after trial.

Nevada Const. art. I, § 8. Statutory rights include NRS 178.5698; NRS 178.5696(1); NRS 178.571; NRS 176.015(3) and (4); NRS 200.601(1) and (2); NRS 205.980(3); and NRS 213.130(4).

[10]

NDAA National Prosecution Standards §§ 26.1-26.7 (2d Ed. 1991)

[11]

373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), cited in State v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 589, 599-603, 81 P.3d 1, 8-10 (2003).

[12]

See also ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-3.11 (3d Ed. 1993); NDAA National Prosecution Standard § 25.4 (2d Ed. 1991).

[13]

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985).

[14]

Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999).

[15]

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976).

[16]

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995).

[17]

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 n.25 (1976).

[18]

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005).

[19]

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986); see also Anderson v. State, 121 Nev. 511, 517, 118 P.3d 184, 187 (2005).

[20]

See, e.g., Moser v. State, 91 Nev. 809, 544 P.2d 424 (1975); Collier v. State, 101 Nev. 473, 705 P.2d 1126 (1985); Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 734 P.2d 700 (1987); McGuire v. State, 100 Nev. 153, 677 P.2d 1060 (1984); Yates v. State, 103 Nev. 200, 734 P.2d 1252 (1987); Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 800 P.2d 175 (1990); Lord v. State, 107 Nev. 28, 806 P.2d 548 (1991); Lisle v. State, 113 Nev. 540, 937 P.2d 473 (1997); Evans v. State, 117 Nev. 609, 28 P.3d 498 (2001); Rowland v. State, 118 Nev. 31, 39 P.3d 114 (2002); Anderson v. State, 21 Nev. 511, 118 P.3d 184 (2005); Pantano v. State, 22 Nev. 782, 138 P.3d 477 (2006); Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 24, 163 P.3d 408 (2007). The cited cases provide a good overview on prosecutorial misconduct at trial; further information on relevant Nevada case law is available from the Nevada Prosecution Advisory Council.

[21]

The limitations of the Rule are aimed at extrajudicial statements that can violate the right to a fair trial, specifically: (1) comments likely to influence the outcome of a trial, and (2) comments likely to prejudice the jury venire. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 (1991).

[22]

See also ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8 cmt. 5, 6 (2002); ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-1.4 (3d Ed. 1993).

[23]

NDAA National Prosecution Standard § 33.1 (2d Ed. 1991).

[24]

NDAA National Prosecution Standards §§ 34.1-34.2 (2d Ed. 1991); see also ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6 cmt. (2002).

[25]

See ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.13 cmt. 9 (2002) (“The duty defined in this Rule applies to governmental organizations.”).

[26]

See, e.g., U.S. v. deVegter, 198 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (public officials inherently owe a fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decisions in the public’s best interest); see also NRS 281A.020(1)(a) (public office is a public trust and shall be held for the sole benefit of the people).

[27]

See, e.g., NRS 241.015(2)(b)(2) (open meeting law exception for attorney-client gathering of quorum); Op. Nev. Att'y Gen. No. 2001-37 (December 31, 2001) (limits of work-product doctrine).

[28]

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.13 cmt. 9 (2002).

[29[

See, e.g., Op. Nev. Att'y Gen. No. 97-01 (January 16, 1997).

[30]

See also ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.11 cmt. (2002).

[31]

Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 310, 646 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1982).

[32]

See also Faison v. Thornton, 863 F.Supp. 1204, 1213 (D.Nev. 1992) (scope of no-contact rule); Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Assocs., 118 Nev. 943, 960-61, 59 P.2d 1237, 1248 (2002) (“managing-speaking agent test” for organizations); Byers v. City of Reno, 628 F.Supp. 182, 183 (D.Nev. 1986) (no-contact rule applies to all employees in action brought against unknown employees); Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 302 (9th Cir. 1996) (no-contact rule applies to opposing party's expert witnesses).

[33]

See also ABA Prosecution Function Standard § 3-3.10(a) and (c) (3d Ed. 1993); NDAA National Prosecution Standards §§ 24.1-24.5 (2d Ed. 1991).

[34]

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. at 430 (1975); Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 129 S.Ct. 855, 861 (2008).

[35]

NRS 41.032; see also County of Washoe v. District Court, 98 Nev. 456, 458, 652 P.2d 1175, 1176 (1982).