Friday, April 27, 2001 | 11:06 a.m.
As jurors in the Margaret Rudin trial try to answer one question -- whether Rudin is guilty or not guilty -- District Judge Joseph Bonaventure is working to answer another.
The question: Should defense attorney Michael Amador be held in criminal contempt of court or be reported to the Nevada State Bar Association for his actions during the Rudin trial?
Bonaventure told Amador April 9 that he would consider the possibility of sanctioning the attorney after the trial.
At that time the defense attorney had angered Bonaventure by violating the judge's order prohibiting him from questioning a witness about a particular topic.
It wasn't the first time Amador had irked the judge, nor was it the last.
On Wednesday Amador broke his promise by failing to deliver a focused, 30-minute closing argument. Instead, Amador gave jurors a 90-minute closing argument that addressed issues that were supposed to be handled by fellow attorney Thomas Pitaro.
"You didn't live up to your bargain. You lied to the court, you sandbagged this court, and I don't like that. I don't appreciate that," Bonaventure yelled.
The judge went on to say that Amador had lost all honor as far as Bonaventure was concerned.
If Bonaventure holds Amador in contempt of court or files a complaint with the Nevada State Bar it will be mark the first time he has taken that step in his 22 years on the bench.
Attorneys held in contempt of court can serve as many as 25 days in jail and pay as much as a $500 fine.
Although contempt of court charges are rare, when judges do impose sanctions they are typically for such things as failing to appear in court, being disrespectful or violating a judge's order, said Assistant District Attorney Charles J. Thompson.
Bar complaints are different in that they can be filed by almost anyone, and the ultimate authority is the Nevada Supreme Court.
Attorneys, judges and any person involved in some sort of litigation can file a complaint with the Nevada Bar Association, Thompson said.
When an attorney has a bar complaint filed against him a committee, during a hearing, decides whether there is merit to the complaint. Should it decide that merit exists board members make a punishment recommendation to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The punishment can be a private reprimand, a fine, a public reprimand, a suspension or even disbarment.
Among the things for which an attorney can get into trouble are: engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.
Whether Amador violated those rules or others will be up to Bonaventure and other attorneys involved in the case to decide before filing such a complaint.
Other attorneys, however, have been watching Amador closely, too, and many are shaking their heads in disbelief.
Amador tied the attorneys up in marathon pre-trial hearings; he argued what Bonaventure has called "frivolous" motions; he falsely accused prosecutor Gary Guymon of unethical behavior; he gave a meandering three-hour opening statement and asked for a mistrial because he was unprepared.
The defense attorney has also irritated everyone involved in the case by showing up late for court, failing to mark evidence in advance and failing to turn off his cell phone in court. Moreover, Amador has engaged in confusing and incredibly long cross-examinations on issues in which Bonaventure has questioned the relevance.
The jury often seemed bored during Amador's questioning. They seldom took notes and often appeared to be close to dozing.
Amador tried to warn the jury in his opening statements of what was to come.
"The difficulty I have at times is communicating to people," Amador said. "I have to look at it and talk to other people, and they will bring me back down to earth and say: 'Mike, what are you trying to say? What are you trying to get across?"
Many would be agreeing with Amador by the end of the trial.
Ironically, Amador also foretold of the arguments that were scattered throughout the trial.
"We might fight over some of those rules. But that's just little stuff. We'll get past that."
Was Amador's behavior at trial worthy of him being held in contempt or was it something that an appellate court should look at if Rudin is convicted?
Defense attorneys offered differing opinions.
Deputy Public Defender Curtis Brown said he believes Bonaventure has done enough.
"I think Amador got a pretty good sanction when the judge went on national TV and said he'd lost all of his honor and respect," Brown said.
But defense attorney Osvaldo "Ozzie" Fumo wasn't so sure Bonaventure's tirade had the desired effect.
"I think every attorney in his right mind would have been embarrassed, but I don't think he was," Fumo said.
Brown said he thinks the length and stress of the case played a part in Bonaventure's flare-ups.
"I think Amador has reached (basketball player) Dennis Rodman status," Brown said. "Because of what he did early on in the case, the refs are fast to blow the whistle."
Brown did say, however, that Amador took three weeks to make points that should have been made in three days.
"I think he bit off more than he could chew. He wasn't competent to do the trial on his own, but I don't know any attorney that would be," Brown said.
Special Public Defender Phil Kohn said strange behavior doesn't necessarily mean an attorney is incompetent. Nor does strange behavior necessarily rise to the level of misconduct.
"Sometimes, the Columbo approach works. Probably not often and I don't recommend it, but it has been known to work," Kohn said.
Jurors sometimes feel so sorry for defendants because of the apparent incompetence of their attorneys they become advocates for the accused and work extra hard to ensure defendants receive a just verdict, Kohn said.
District Attorney Stewart Bell said attorneys in his office have on a number of occasions come to him because they wanted to file a state bar complaint against a defense attorney.
In each of the cases, Bell said the issues were resolved without having to go to the bar by meeting with the judge or -- if it's a public defender -- the attorney's boss.
"If there is no other remedy or if their actions are so egregious (that) action is warranted, we will not hesitate to file a complaint," Bell said.
In this case, Bell said he would not get involved because Bonaventure ordered that he not take part in the case; he once represented Rudin in a divorce proceeding.
Should Guymon and fellow prosecutor Chris Owens be interested in filing a complaint, the ultimate decision would be cleared through Thompson or Chief Deputy District Attorney William Koot.
Amador said Wednesday evening he has done nothing in the Rudin case but "vigorously and selflessly" defend Margaret Rudin.
archive
