Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News


RENO COURTHOUSE SHOOTING: Subplots bring intrigue to trial

Ex-pawn shop owner accused of killing wife, shooting judge

RENO -- Trial begins today in Reno for Darren Mack, accused of stabbing his estranged wife to death at his town house and then taking aim from a downtown parking garage and shooting their divorce judge as he sat in his chambers.

With racy subplots, the case has all the elements of a late-night adult television drama:


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Two suspects in officer's slaying could face death penalty




  • A wealthy, attractive couple. A swinger lifestyle. Well-heeled connections among the city's movers and shakers. One prosecutor removed from the case. Another with his sights on Congress. Allegations of judicial corruption.

    A bloody dog.

    But whether jurors in Reno get to write the final chapter in this true crime saga remains to be seen.

    From the outset, defense lawyers Scott Freeman and David Chesnoff have questioned whether Mack, 46, a former wealthy pawn shop owner, can get a fair trial in a case that generated intense media attention and prompted unprecedented legal maneuvers.

    All Washoe County judges were recused from hearing the criminal case or any civil lawsuits stemming from it because of concerns of prejudice.

    District Attorney Dick Gammick removed himself early on because of a his long-standing acquaintance with Mack, and two special prosecutors were named: Clark County's Assistant District Attorney Christopher Lalli and Chief Deputy District Attorney Robert Daskas.

    During a hearing Thursday, the lawyers and Clark County District Judge Douglas Herndon began sifting through juror questionnaires, "kicking" potential jurors who expressed unwavering opinions of Mack's guilt.

    "It looks as though the majority of jurors in Washoe County have already made their minds up as it relates to Mr. Mack's guilt or innocence," Freeman said in an interview on Friday. "Obviously, both sides would prefer that opinions have not been made."

    Lalli could not immediately be reached for comment Friday. He has indicated he would make no remarks to the media until after the trial, his assistant in Las Vegas said.

    But during Thursday's hearing, both he and Daskas, who intends to resign after the trial and run for the Democratic nomination in Nevada's 3rd congressional district, said their goal is to seat a fair and impartial jury.

    Out of about 400 potential jurors, more than 250 noted a belief of Mack's guilt, the judge said. But he said a surprising number said they are open-minded.

    "There's more people here who said they don't have an opinion than I would have expected," Herndon said.

    Under Nevada law, potential jurors who admit having a preconceived opinion on a defendant's guilt can still be seated if they indicate a willingness and ability to set aside their feelings and decide the case on its merits.

    "The question then becomes, when you say you can set aside your opinion, where do you put it? In your back pocket?" Freeman said. "That would be a very difficult thing for someone to do, just by human nature."

    The defense is expected to move for a change of venue after the jury selection process. In Nevada, such motions cannot be heard until after an attempt is made to seat a jury.

    Herndon last week acknowledged the defense concerns, and indicated if an impartial jury cannot be seated, he would move the trial to Las Vegas, home to the judge, both prosecutors and Chesnoff.

    Mack is accused of murdering his wife, Charla, 39, who's body was found stabbed to death June 12, 2006, at Mack's upscale town house in south Reno.

    Authorities allege he then drove downtown, and a few hours later shot Family Court Judge Chuck Weller with a high-powered rifle while the judge was in his chambers on the third floor of the courthouse.

    The judge was shot in the chest and recovered.

    Mack, charged with murder and attempted murder, has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

    During an August 2006 preliminary hearing, Mack's longtime friend, Dan Osborne, testified he was at Mack's condo when Charla Mack arrived with the couple's daughter the day of the killing and watched television with the girl upstairs while Mack said he was going to talk to Charla.

    A short time later, Osborne said his dog, with blood on its "face, throat and feet," came into the condo through the garage ahead of Mack. Osborne eventually took the girl to Mack's mother and called police.

    Osborne also testified that Mack was frustrated with Weller's handling of the divorce case and felt he wasn't getting a fair hearing. A reporter for a Reno television station earlier said that Mack had approached her weeks before with allegations that Weller was corrupt.

    Charla Mack filed for divorce in 2005. In court documents, her lawyer said Darren Mack ignored Weller's order to pay her $10,000 a month in temporary alimony. Weller found him in contempt of court, but Mack filed for bankruptcy.

    The lawyer in documents also said Mack continued to live a lavish lifestyle, took frequent vacations with girlfriends and often attended "swinger" parties.

    Mack fled the Reno area and ended up in Mexico, where he surrendered 11 days after the stabbing and shooting.

    While on the lam, he called and e-mailed District Attorney Gammick, a friend and business acquaintance for 20 years. But the trial judge suppressed some of those communications, ruling they were obtained in an unethical manner because Gammick knew Mack was represented by lawyers.

    The trial is expected to take two to four weeks, attorneys said. The prosecution lists more than 200 potential witnesses, including 15 experts. The defense in court filings identified three, with six experts, though they reserved the right to call anyone previously mentioned in discovery or other case filings.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 6 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    mark wrote on October 02, 2009 06:45 PM: truth is stranger than fictiion


    mike wrote on October 02, 2009 06:44 PM: W0w


    TruTH is STRANGER than FICTION !!!


    citizen wrote on October 01, 2007 05:54 PM: its naiive to take a potential juror at their word that they have no opinion.....lawdog is 100% correct..a very probing voir dire is whats needed by defense counsel


    oldlawdawg wrote on October 01, 2007 11:01 AM: Once again -- amazing how that worked out!


    oldlawdawg wrote on October 01, 2007 09:45 AM: Why is the RJ editorial panel so concerned about the perfectly reasonable comment I submitted about Judge Heardon's making public comments vouching for the credibility of the jury pool that my comment remains unpublished? Or is the panel so over worked with submissions that it cannot post fast enough and still censor out those comments it just pain does not like?


    oldlawdawg wrote on October 01, 2007 09:30 AM: Judge Herdon has absolutely no business making public comments which "vouch" for the neutrality of the jury pool, and how surprised he is at the level of "open mindedness." It is simply improper for a judge to make such public comments, especially when the jury has yet to be seated and potential jurors can read the papers and get a sense of how to respond during the selection process in order to get on the jury should they wish to exercise undue influence by lying to get selected, a common concern in all high publicity trials as a "hang-man's juror" can easily feign neutrality in order to convict regardless of the evidence -- and Herdon has only made it easier. Like the prosecutors, Herdon should not make any public comments or statements at all until after the trial. What good is it to get a Judge from Clark County if he is just going to shoot off his mouth to the Washoe county jury pool? Herndon may think his comments are "neutral," but his chief concern should be for the integrity of the trial process, and not how to get in the papers in a manner he finds acceptable. Just shut up and be a judge for God's sake.