United States v Gage (2008)
"By late Monday afternoon at U.S. District Court, I reached the conclusion that it's a good thing defense attorney Tom Pitaro didn't go to medical school.
From the way he carved up prosecution witness Dr. Ben Venger in the medical fraud trial of Noel Gage, it's clear Pitaro would have made a terrible mess of his patients. They surely would have lost arms, legs, and a lot of blood.
Brain surgeon Venger spilled his guts Monday, and Pitaro made sure the government's key insider kept leaking throughout a lengthy and painful cross-examination.
Venger, who has spent his professional life building an excellent reputation in the community, was sliced like fish bait by Pitaro, who surely challenged a federal court record for the most times calling a witness a liar. I've seen turkey carcasses five days after Christmas with more vital signs.
At some point I almost expected Senior U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush to pull out a stethoscope and pronounce the witness lifeless for the purposes of further use in a trial that finds attorney Gage accused of conspiring to defraud clients in medical malpractice cases and launder a percentage of the proceeds to admitted professional liars such as Venger." John L. Smith, columnist
United States v Acosta, et al (2006)
Hells Angels - Laughlin River Run 2002
LAS VEGAS - After four years preparing, federal prosecutors hoped to prove at a trial spawned by a deadly casino brawl between Hells Angels and Mongols that the world's most famous motorcycle club was a criminal racketeering enterprise like the Mafia.
A conviction would have given authorities long-sought tools to bust up the Hells Angels, which prosecutors characterized as a disciplined but violent organization that deals drugs and runs guns across the U.S. and around the world.
Instead, the case spun into a ditch, carrying most of a state murder case with it. Six Hells Angels pleaded guilty or no-contest to lesser charges, and the organization that they insisted was just a club for motorcycle enthusiasts emerged unscathed.
State v. Chafee (2008)
Fired corrections officer acquitted in shooting
By DAVID KIHARA
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Nov. 21, 2008
A former corrections officer on trial in the shooting of an inmate at High Desert State Prison was acquitted of battery Thursday.
The jury found Paul Chaffee, 33, not guilty of battery with a deadly weapon with substantial bodily harm in the December 2006 shooting of inmate Donald Hixon.
"Not only is it a victory for me, it's a victory for all correctional officers of the state of Nevada," Chaffee said after the verdict was delivered.
The Nevada Department of Corrections fired Chaffee after he was indicted by a Clark County grand jury. Chaffee said he wants to fight to get his job back.
His attorney, Tom Pitaro, said Chaffee has had difficulty getting employment with the charge hanging over his head. Chaffee recently worked selling greeting cards, Pitaro said. "He's grateful to the jury for finding him innocent in this case. After two years, he can get back on with his life."
Chaffee worked as a corrections officer for 61/2 years.
Hixon filed a civil lawsuit against Chaffee and the state prison system alleging the Department of Corrections didn't properly train or supervise Chaffee and that Chaffee shot him maliciously. That case is pending in federal court.
Authorities said the incident occurred after Hixon got into a fight with his cellmate. Hixon told the jury he was outside his cell and was facing a wall when Chaffee shot him.
Hixon also said he had his hands on his head with his fingers interlaced at the time.
At the time, Hixon was serving a 12- to 48-month sentence for possessing a stolen vehicle.
Kevin Ranft, a correctional officer at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center and regional vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041, said officers and others are put in danger when they are accused of criminal wrongdoing while doing their job because they second guess their decisions.
Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and a longtime critic of Nevada's prison system, said guards aren't above the law.
"We assume that they (the union) agree that guards should be held to at least the same standards as ordinary people within our criminal justice system," Peck said.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/34865874.html
United States v. Bongiovanni
Mon, Nov 2, 1998 (11:13 a.m.)
Investigators took two years to gather the evidence, but a jury needed less than eight hours to weigh it and decide prosecutors didn't have a case against former district court Judge Gerard Bongiovanni.
Bongiovanni was found innocent Friday of 13 charges of bribery and wire fraud.
Jurors in the U.S. District Court began deliberating the case late Thursday afternoon, broke for the day at 4:30 p.m. and resumed work at 8:30 a.m. Friday. They had a verdict by 4 p.m.
It was the second trial for Bongiovanni in less than a year. His first, last December, resulted in a hung jury with 10 jurors reportedly voting for acquittal.
"This has fortified my belief in the United States' judicial system," said Bongiovanni at the conclusion of the two-week-long trial. "The system works. I always knew it would."
Defense attorney Thomas Pitaro said the four-year ordeal has taken a "terrible toll" on his client.
"Thank God for the jury system," Pitaro said.
Suspended from office shortly after being indicted on the corruption charges, Bongiovanni said after the verdict was in he has no desire to return to the bench but instead will return to the practice of law.
"I would be afraid to get on the telephone and then have to explain what I said three or four years later," he said.
The federal government's case against Bongiovanni started with taped telephone conversations in 1993 and 1994.
FBI Special Agent Jerry Hanford testifed at trial that while taping Paul Dottore and Terry Salem, suspects in an unrelated banking fraud, he became suspicious of Bongiovanni. Dottore was a close friend of the then-judge.
The FBI and federal prosecutors started taping Bongiovanni in 1994, then set up a sting operation to try to catch the judge accepting bribes. Dottore and Salem were given lighter prison sentences on the bank fraud charges for their cooperation.
The sting involved Salem offering a bribe through Dottore, with payment being made in marked money.
When FBI agents arrested Bongiovanni shortly after Dottore left his home on an evening in October 1995, they found $500 in marked bills in the judge's pocket and the rest of the money in Dottore's possession.
Bongiovanni said the money was for repayment of a loan that had been made to Dottore. Dottore later admitted to owing the judge $500.
Prosecutors also based their case on an allegation that "Splash" producer Jeff Kutash bribed Bongiovanni for special treatment in a civil suit then in Bongiovanni's court. Kutash was acquitted in the case last year.
Bongiovanni said Dottore befriended him at a vulnerable period in the judge's life: His wife, Marilyn, was suffering from multiple sclerosis -- a disease that claimed her life in July 1996.
"I was very trustworthy of him. Maybe I wouldn't have been friends with him if not for my wife's illness," he said.
Bongiovanni denied during his testimony he ever received any bribe money, and Pitaro noted that some promised favors never materialized.
Pitaro conceded that Bongiovanni did help people with such matters as scheduling traffic tickets for resolution or granting no-bail releases for prisoners. But the defense lawyer said that such acts are routine for all judges and legal under Nevada law.
Pitaro argued that Dottore was the only one who profiteered from his admitted bribe solicitations and said his stories of passing the money along to Bongiovanni couldn't be believed.
http://www001.lasvegassun.com/news/1998/nov/02/vindicated-bongiovanni-says-he-wont-seek-bench-aga/
Cain v. Culinary Local 226
Fired Culinary employees lose suit against union
Rachael Levy
Wed, Mar 27, 1996 (11:59 a.m.)
With an airborne kiss to one of his attorneys, the Culinary Union leader in Las Vegas walked out of the federal courtroom cleared of charges that he was vindictive and a hypocrite.
Local 226 and its secre-tary-treasurer, Jim Arnold, on Tuesday successfully fended off a legal attack by former workers who claimed they were fired for asking for overtime, a benefit thousands of union members have.
"I don't have a double standard," said a tearful and happy Arnold as he left the courtroom. "There is no way in the world that I was unjust."
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro tossed out the claims that Arnold and the union violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and wrongfully fired the four union representatives in 1993.
"I think this case is not supportable to put the matter before the jury," Pro said as he ended the trial prematurely. "The plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden."
Arnold, co-defendant D. Taylor, and their attorneys, Tom Pitaro and Fern Steiner, hugged and shook hands minutes after the decision was announced.
Arnold said the allegations continue to be a political issue today. Arnold said those who plan to challenge him in May's union elections hoped to use this case to hurt him politically.
Arnold said the past three years have been "pure hell" as he fought the allegations brought by former employees Donald "Jack" Cain, Donald Spinelli, Carolyn Gonzalez and Michelle Vieira.
The four alleged that Arnold required them to work 50 to 70 hours a week for "coffee-shop" wages and claimed that combined they are owed as much as $500,000.
They were fired May 19, 1993, the day the election results were returned reaffirming Arnold's support.
Local 226 maintained that the employees were fired for "political disloyalty" after they planned to campaign against their boss, Arnold.
In many elected positions, staff members lose their jobs if their boss is not re-elected. Those who worked for the Culinary Union were in the same situation.
The judge ruled that Cain, Spinelli, Gonzalez and Vieira were salaried employees and therefore did not work for an hourly wage and could not claim protection under federal law.
In addition, Pro said the former union representatives failed to provide evidence that their firings were the direct result of their attempts to seek overtime.
The workers' attorney, Sandra Pomrenze, said she didn't agree with Pro's ruling but refrained from commenting on the possibility of appeal.
"It's been a difficult three years and they've got to decide whether they're going to appeal or if they're going to get on with their lives," she said.