Article by:
Christy Craig, Esq.
District Courts are trial courts. Both civil and criminal trials happen in District Court. District Court judges must be competent, experienced and understand trials. DC Judges must have deep, extensive, and significant trial experience in order to adequately oversee trials, to make sure they are done right the first time. I am a trial lawyer. I have spent more than two decades representing members of our community in District Court. From jury selection through verdict, I have done all kinds of cases from petty misdemeanors to capital homicide cases where the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.
In law school attorneys are taught how to read and understand statutes and case law. Law school does not teach how to become a trial lawyer. Understanding the complexities of trial can only come with experience, with doing. I have been doing this work for more than two decades. My opponent has not. He has spent nearly his entire career as counsel for the State Bar. His lack of trial and courtroom experience shows. Many of the mistakes cited by the higher courts are basic fundamental trial errors, such as a “failure to conduct necessary fact-finding”[1] or failure to make “findings of fact or conclusions of law”[2] or that the court “arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion.” [3]
According to the website https://www.ournevadajudges.com/judges/rob-w-bare/overview nearly 40% of his published cases have been reversed. This is not just a travesty of justice but a huge expense to taxpayers. When a case is reversed by a higher court and sent back to District Court Judge to fix their error, the taxpayers foot the bill for the redo.
I am Nevada Supreme Court Rule 250 certified to handle capital homicide cases. If elected, I would be the only Rule 250 qualified judge on the bench. I have spent my entire career representing the most vulnerable in our community. I discovered that mentally ill criminal defendants were languishing in jail waiting for transfer to a forensic mental hospital for treatment, I took action. I sued the State of Nevada and won. As a result, the state built Stein Forensic Hospital in Clark County. The first forensic treatment facility for the mentally ill built in the entire state in more than 50 years.
As team chief of the Complex Litigation Unit in the Public Defender’s Office, I supervised a team of attorneys in developing impact litigation strategies addressing systemic problems in local justice system. After two years of work, filing hundreds of writs and motions within the Eighth Judicial District Court and Federal District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a historic ruling declaring that every person arrested in Nevada has a right to a constitutionally valid detention hearing before a court can require a pretrial detainee to post bail. This decision ended decades unconstitutional detention of the poor in the entire State of Nevada.
I am Christy Craig. I am running for District Court Judge in Dept. 32. I am asking for your vote.
[1] Grupo Famsa, S.A. DE C.V. v Eighth Judicial District Court and Judge Rob Bare, 132 Nev. 334 (2016) (Hardesty ) which found that the “district court failed to conduct the necessary fact-finding to determine whether service was constitutionally sufficient.”
[2] Paulos v FCH1, 136 Nev. 18 (2020) (Hardesty) finding that the district court failed to make any findings of facts or conclusions of law on the issues before the district court the Nevada Supreme Court was unable to conclude that the court's ruling was legally correct.”
[3] State of Nevada v. Eighth Judicial District Court and Judge Rob Bare, 132 Nev. 600 (2016). Reversed in part. The court concluded that the district court “arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion.”
Centeno v Montesa, 130 Nev. 1162 (2014) Reversed and remanded based on erroneous interpretation of the controlling law.
Vanbuskirk v Nakamura, 132 Nev. 1040 (2016) Reversed and remanded
Castaneda v Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc, 2018 WL 4408746 (2018). Reversed and remanded.
Tallard Ct. Trust v Nationstar Mortgage, 130 Nev. 1253 (2014) Reversed and remanded as the district court’s decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the controlling law.
Las Vegas Sands Corp v Suen, 132 Nev. 998 (2016) reversed in part and remanded.
Lepley v NDOC, 131 Nev. 1312 (2015) Reversed and remanded finding that the district court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint given that he had satisfied the jurisdictional requirement.
Alexander v. American Auto Shield, 131 Nev. 1247 (2015) Reversed and remanded finding that the district court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint.
Woods v. Kings Row Trailer Park, 131 Nev. 1366 (2015) Reversed in part and remanded. District court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Geck v. Clark County District Attorney, 443 P.3d 1126 (2019) Reversed and remanded.
State of Nevada v. Eighth Judicial District Court and Judge Rob Bare, 131 Nev. 1350 (2015). “The district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion.”