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

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

News
Sep. 06, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

ARRAIGNMENT: Court rejects Boggs bid

Ex-lawmaker told she's not indigent enough to get public defender

By K.C. HOWARD
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Former Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs appears in court Wednesday with attorney Bill Terry, right, and Assistant Deputy Public Defender Daren Richards. Boggs, citing financial problems, applied for a public defender to replace Terry but was denied.
Photo by Gary Thompson.

Former Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs might not have much money these days, but she doesn't qualify as an indigent defendant entitled to free representation.

At her arraignment Wednesday before Hearing Master Kevin Williams, Boggs' private and high-profile defense attorney, Bill Terry, announced that he was stepping down and that Boggs had opted to have the public defender's office represent her.

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

Most Popular Stories
  • Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group
  • NORM: Simpson planned acquittal party
  • Nevada's economy dead last
  • NORM: Hard-core fans ask: Has Jacko moved?
  • NORM: Bobbitt trains for boxing bout in LV
  • NORM: Letterman gives an 'A' to O.J. jury
  • Judge: Attacker 'gleeful'
  • PALACE STATION ROBBERY: Audiotapes convicted O.J.
  • NORM: 13th Agassi slam another big hit
  • Circle of friends surrounds lost pal



    • Assistant Deputy Public Defender Daren Richards then handed Williams a blue sheet with the details of Boggs' income and expenses.

    After reading the document, Williams, a former public defender, said Boggs did not qualify and he could not justify the public expense.

    "I understand that you may be upside-down on your income at the very moment, but I can't appoint a public defender for you," he told her, declining to disclose the details. "You're going to have to find other means to get ahold of an attorney."

    Williams gave Boggs until Oct. 3 to find an attorney and warned that if she returned without one and forced him to appoint a public defender as a stalling tactic, he would charge her a hefty fine.

    Boggs' finances are "definitely well above what it should be" to merit a public defender, Williams said.

    Boggs was indicted last week on charges that she committed perjury and filed false documents relating to her failed bid for re-election in 2006.

    Terry had said she planned to plead not guilty to the charges. He told Williams that he has been representing Boggs for free.

    But Terry said Boggs has paid two other private attorneys for separate cases, indicating her divorce and previous legal troubles with local unions might be at least partly to blame for her penurious state.

    The charges she faces stem from many hours of video, provided to police by the Culinary union and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, that indicate Boggs was living at a home outside her district.

    She also is accused of using campaign contributions to pay her baby sitter. Boggs has said she needed the sitter to attend campaign events.

    Boggs, a Republican, had gotten on the wrong side of the Culinary union when she was a board member for Station Casinos, and she incurred the wrath of the police union when she challenged a labor contract that gave officers significant raises.

    The two unions filed a lawsuit against Boggs over her residence last year. The suit was dismissed after she lost the election.

    Her financial downfall has played out in the news media during the past year since her divorce.

    Her former Summerlin home went into foreclosure after the mortgage went unpaid. She also received negative publicity after a controversial Arizona land deal.

    In addition, after she lost the 2006 election, Boggs lost her $100,000-a-year position as a consultant with Keep Memory Alive, local liquor distributor Larry Ruvo's Alzheimer's foundation.

    Williams told Boggs to re-evaluate her income to find money for an attorney, which some defense attorneys estimated Wednesday could cost six figures if she goes to trial.

    Former Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, a Boggs colleague briefly in 2004, was granted indigent status for her public corruption case in federal court to obtain the services of well-known defense attorney Richard Wright.

    Boggs declined to comment after Wednesday's hearing, as did Terry.

    Review-Journal writer Adrienne Packer contributed to this report.



    Leave Your Comment 16 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:

    Mike wrote on September 08, 2007 09:37 PM: Nice job mentioning she's a Republican, funny how when Kincaid, Malone, Herrera and Kenny had their troubles their party affiliation (Democrat) was rarely mentioned.


    Supreme Court Order wrote on September 07, 2007 12:09 AM: The lower court is Affirmed. Only the truly poor are given free legal services, not those (like crafty commissioners) who have transferred their assets to appear broke! One may (should?) also of plead guilty to when they are guilty and save time and money.


    Dave wrote on September 06, 2007 04:00 PM: What a joke this lady has turned out to be! She should have saved some of that bribe money for just this instance, when her butt is in trouble and she needs a good lawyer! Where's all your highly connected friends now Ms. Boggs? Surprise - they have all abandoned you in your time of need because you can't do anything for them anymore - funny how that works.....


    patte wrote on September 06, 2007 03:12 PM: Who can possibly afford several hundred thousand dollars for a defense?


    Show me an attorney that doesn't want


    a $25,000 down payment. She doesn't have a job or a house. This is unfair.


    patte wrote on September 06, 2007 03:11 PM: Who can possibly afford several hundred thousand dollars for a defense?

    Show me an attorney that doesn't want

    a $25,000 down payment. She doesn't have a job or a house. This is unfair.


    patte wrote on September 06, 2007 03:11 PM: Who can possibly afford several hundred thousand dollars for a defense?
    Show me an attorney that doesn't want
    a $25,000 down payment. She doesn't have a job or a house. This is unfair.


    Miranda wrote on September 06, 2007 01:50 PM: Miranda Rights:
    "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."

    So ... what does afford really mean?


    Jon Hamel wrote on September 06, 2007 12:40 PM: The need for Justice is a basic requirement of our civilized world and one of a few good reasons for Citizens to maintain and support a Government. That said, what justice can be assured if a defendant is unable or unwilling to provide for their own defense . . . and is forced into a plea deal, or worse (pleading guilty to a crime that one did not commit). The state has nearly unlimited tax payer supplied resources to prosecute a case. A defendant is at a disadvantage in the process of determining guilt or innocence when the defendant lacks the financial resources to hire a competent attorney. The majority of defendants will never have a Dream Team of lawyers as did O. J. Simpson. So I ask, in the name of Justice, why a defendant must be held financially responsible to defend them selves in a court of law? Clearly, many defendants will be unable to comply with the courts judgment that the defendant must bring their own attorney . . . can we in clear conscious call that justice? I say no.


    Cards anyone? wrote on September 06, 2007 11:35 AM: Where is the RACE CARD??? Is it not being played? What's wrong haha. Gosh darn! Not this time?


    Lee Yarbrough wrote on September 06, 2007 09:55 AM: Let the games begin!

    You are going to see some deal making by Boggs on this one.

    She is going to end up pleading to some lessor charges. She will get probation and a fine. She will move on with her life.

    I am betting some business men come up with a defense fund. It is always best to depend those that you need to keep quite about how they helped you in the past.

    There is not going to be any jail time for Ms. Boggs.


    Read All Comments