Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
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
Jun. 18, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Defense attorney requests mistrial

Juror overheard conversations during murder-for-hire trial

By DAVID KIHARA
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Ronald Brady Jr., seated, speaks Tuesday to attorney Michael Schwarz in Clark County District Court. Brady, convicted in a murder-for-hire scheme
Photo by Ronda Churchill.

A courtroom recording system that allowed a juror to hear whispered conversations between a defendant and his attorney during a murder-for-hire trial might lead to a mistrial in the case.

Defense attorney Michael Schwarz said the juror overheard private conversations between him and his client, Nelson Ronald Brady Jr. during a weeklong trial last winter.

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
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat




    • The juror, Paul Swaim, was able to hear the conversations because he was wearing court-supplied headphones that picked up conversations typical jurors wouldn't have heard.

    That amounted to electronic eavesdropping, Schwarz said.

    He asked District Judge Douglas Herndon on Tuesday to declare a mistrial.

    "The juror committed misconduct during the trial," Schwarz said.

    Herndon said he wanted more information about the alleged eavesdropping, such as what exactly the juror heard and if it influenced the juror's verdict. A hearing on the matter will be held July 1.

    A jury in February convicted Brady of three counts of solicitation to commit murder. Authorities accused Brady, 36, of trying to hire a hitman to kill three witnesses in the Craig Titus and Kelly Ryan murder case.

    Former bodybuilding champions Titus and Ryan were accused of killing their 28-year-old personal assistant, Melissa James, in December 2005. James' charred body was found in a torched Jaguar in the desert near Blue Diamond Road.

    On May 30, Titus pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping and arson. Ryan pleaded guilty to arson and battery with a deadly weapon with substantial bodily harm. They are scheduled to be sentenced July 18.

    Swaim served on Brady's jury from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4. He said in an affidavit that he "could hear many conversations that were being held at the defense table, between Mr. Schwarz and the defendant, Ronald Brady Jr."

    Brady uses "Ronald" as a first name but is listed as Nelson Brady in official court documents.

    Josh Tomsheck, the county prosecutor in the case, said Schwarz and Brady could have used a pen and paper to communicate sensitive information during the trial.

    Tomsheck said Schwarz also could have manually turned off the microphone placed on his courtroom table if he didn't want a conversation overheard.

    Tomsheck also said he overheard conversations between Schwarz and Brady during the trial because they were speaking loudly.

    Schwarz said he didn't know the microphone system had a "mute" function. He also said he's not required to write messages down when communicating with clients during a trial.

    According to District Court Administrator Chuck Short, no one has ever complained that the recording system used at the courthouse picks up snippets of conversations between defendants and their attorneys.

    He said courthouse technicians will try to recreate the conditions in Herndon's courtroom to see if there was a problem with the recording system.

    Officials also are going to track down the headphones used by Swaim to see whether they malfunctioned.

    "It's totally inconsistent with the way the system is designed to work," Short said.

    The recording system, known as JAVS, is widely used in courthouses across the country. Clark County District Court has used JAVS since 1993 and has updated it since then.

    Under the system, microphones are placed in front of the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney and at the witness stand. The voice-activated system records whoever is speaking and stops only after the speaker pauses for half a second, Short said.

    The microphones are sensitive and court officials are told to turn the system off when a court session is over so no private conversations are recorded.

    "Like any technology, it's only as good and effective as the individual operating it," Short said.

    Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039.

    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 11 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.

    citizen wrote on June 19, 2008 11:10 AM: I hope that anyone that has ever had a hearing impaired person on a jury and has used these headphones looks into this! Regardless of hearing the defense or the prosecution it is wrong and violates priviledge!


    Steve T wrote on June 18, 2008 09:09 PM: how true eddie. to all you morons who think it's fine to deny the accused his rights, I hope the ACLU jumps all over this, just like they helped Rush Limbaugh when he was trying to beat his drug rap.


    steady eddie wrote on June 18, 2008 07:33 PM: I'm not sure what world SnakePliskin lives in, but it sounds pretty nice.

    Unfortunately, in the real world, there are countless documented cases of crooked cops and DAs going after innocent people. If you don't think so, you must not have watched the news in 50 or so years. Wake up, idiot.


    SnakePliskin wrote on June 18, 2008 06:43 PM: I'm sure he's guilty of something. Put him on a rocket and shoot it into the sun and take the rest of the court cases with him and the lawyers for that matter. I've managed to behave myself my entire life and not get myself into his position. It's easy, just behave yourself. They just don't throw people into court for no reason. You sound like a typical round mouth defense attorney. That's what's wrong with this country. Criminals have more rights than victims and you defense attorneys are complete tools.


    Steve T wrote on June 18, 2008 03:10 PM: It always amazes me how all the government haters in this state (or anywhere else for that matter) think it's fine for the government to trample on the rights of someone that they perceive is guilty (such as DD does here) despite his limited to nonexistant knowledge of the case. My guess is the guys defense attorney would feel the same way if one of his family members was murdered: He would want the accused (who is presumed by our system to be innocent until proved guily beyond a reasonable doubt) to receive a fair trial in order to insure that the correct person was convicted.


    steady eddie wrote on June 18, 2008 01:40 PM: DD, how do you know this guy is guilty? He clearly didn't get a fair trial, and I doubt that you have any first hand knowledge of the alleged crime.

    If he truly is guilty, I have no problem with him being convicted. But I doubt that this is the type of trial that was envisioned when the Bill of Rights was authored.


    DD wrote on June 18, 2008 01:13 PM: First of all Eddie, I am not a her. If I'm stupid enough to commit a crime and go to trial, I'm going to man up and plead guilty and take responsibility for my actions and not try to bamboozle the legal system.


    gj wrote on June 18, 2008 10:25 AM: very well said DD, how would they feel if anybody in there family would be murdered.


    steady eddie wrote on June 18, 2008 08:04 AM: I hope nobody in DD's family is ever on trial and the jury is able to eavesdrop on conversations between that family member and her attorney. I wonder how she would feel about that.


    DD wrote on June 18, 2008 07:24 AM: I hope nobody in this lawyers family ever gets murdered and has the case thrown out in a mistrial. I wonder how he would feel about that.


    Read All Comments