Friday, Nov. 9, 2007 | 7:11 a.m.
Every family has its black sheep. The families of employees in the Clark County district attorney's office are no exception.
While employees of the district attorney's office have been busy putting crooks behind bars, some of their relatives have been stabbing their husbands, stealing jewelry, growing marijuana, molesting children and conducting drive-by shootings , authorities allege . And that's just this year.
Lately, though, they've been getting into more trouble than usual.
When that lost-cause relative runs afoul of the law, employees of the district attorney's office are obligated to report it to their supervisors. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, the district attorney's office then asks the Nevada attorney general's office to handle the case.
This year the district attorney's office has handed off 27 cases because of potential conflicts of interest. That's a huge jump over past years. In fact, there have never been more than 11 conflict cases in a single year during the past decade.
District Attorney David Roger has no explanation for why there have been so many more cases this year. The office's policy has remained the same.
"I just don't know," he said.
One possibility, although it fails to explain such a surge, is that the size of the district attorney's office has increased over the years, he said. It has about 750 employees, Roger said, up from about 525 in 2003.
Connections to Roger himself have caused three cases to be referred to the attorney general's office.
Two of his neighbors were charged this year with blowing up someone's mailbox, Roger said. "And you thought Mr. Roger's neighborhood was a peaceful place," he joked.
The other case involves Joseph Planck, a Clark County firefighter accused of stealing money raised for Hurricane Katrina victims during a firefighters' boot drive. The case gained attention when Planck's attorney accused other local firefighters involved in the drive of shady dealings.
So what does all this have to do with Roger? Not much.
Roger referred the case to the attorney general's office because Planck is the nephew of one of Roger's direct neighbors. He just wanted to avoid any appearance of favorable treatment, Roger said.
Unlike most of the conflict cases, however, that one was not immediately referred to the attorney general's office.
Planck was indicted in March 2006. The district attorney's office handled the case until September this year.
Roger said the timing of the office's decision to hand off the case had nothing to do with the potential political heat that such a case could create.
"When we originally charged the case, I don't believe the uncle was my neighbor," Roger said. "It dawned on me after I lived next door to him for a while that there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest."
That realization was spurred in part by the case involving his other neighbors, he said.
"You can look at our record," he said. "We take on the tough cases despite the political ramifications."
The other conflict cases referred this year involve much stronger connections - employees' husbands, brothers, sons, sisters, nieces, fathers-in-law and sisters-in-law.
Assistant District Attorney Robert Teuton, who oversees the Family Support Division, said he thinks the increase in conflict cases stems from management's increased emphasis on the duty of employees to report such situations. That has translated into more awareness , he said.
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Lalli, who oversees the criminal division, is usually the one who decides whether a case should be referred out of the office.
He said a number of factors go into the decision. Cases involving employees' immediate famil ies are obviously more likely to be referred, he said. And the more serious the charge, the more important it is that there is no appearance of conflict, he said.
It's not easy for an employee to walk into his supervisor's office and explain a family member's missteps, Lalli said. Most of these people, after all, are law-and-order types.
"Absolutely, it is embarrassing," he said. "People are to be commended for coming forward."
He said something similar to a counseling session often takes place with the employee.
"You can't pick your family," he said. "It just happens."
Lalli knows first hand. This year, one of his relatives was charged with battery. The case was referred to the attorney general's office .
He said the situation made his family's Easter gathering a little more uncomfortable than usual.
"You just stick to other topics," he said. "It's awkward."
So, what does Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto think of all the extra work coming her way?
She said in a statement that although the number of referrals has increased, they have not been a burden on her office's criminal division.
The attorney general's office sometimes refers cases to the district attorney's office, too. But it hasn't done so this year, Lalli said.
So this year, the arrangement has been a great deal for the district attorney's office.
archive
