Saturday, February 9, 2008
"But gosh, it's been a lot of fun."
"Like fish and feathers" "I prosecute them pretty rigorously."
BEFORE THE CARSON CITY GRAND JURY
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CARSON CITY GRAND JURY.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, June 1, 2001
Carson City, Nevada
Excerpts of the testimony of Noel Waters
Q Do you believe you have a bias inherent in yourself when you profile particular cases or particular individuals to say that you are not going to prosecute as vigorously because of somebody’s background or because of something that you may know about them?
A Well, to answer your question, “bias” is like — ismaybe a loaded word that has more meaning to one person than it does to another. No doubt based upon my background and myexperience, my attitude toward life, my view of the human
condition, I have — you know, I have biases, and I know some of them. I don’t — you know, I don’t like to participate in — in things that I feel like somebody is cooking something up or panning something. I don’t like certain kinds of crimes that I spend more attention on because of my background or biases, you know, like fish and feathers — or fish and game violations. I don’t like them, and when I find them, I prosecute them pretty rigorously. Yeah, I have those biases.
I guess the only thing you can say is to try and be aware of it and still approach something with an idea of being reasonable in that case and at least trying to comply with your own — you know, your own conscience or whatever, your own sense of what it takes to try and do a decent job, you know, with something. Otherwise, I’m not really sure just how to answer that, or maybe I’m not being — I’m not being responsive to your question, Counsel.
Q And the concern that, you know, a victim is a victim and should be entitled to substantial justice that you had said was part of your responsibilities.
A I see. Maybe I need to kind of correct that. I talk about the background — for instance, we get cases where an
offender — the victim in the case is involved in drugs. It happens a lot, sales of drugs or something like that. And that person ends up getting arrested for the drug sales, and while they are in jail, their roommate hawks their TV set for drugs.
Sure. Are they a victim? Yes. Are they entitled tosubstantial justice? Yes. Does it make a difference based upon who that person is in terms of how vigorously you pursue it or something? Yeah, it does. I think the question sometimes is, is it for, I don’t know, improper — are your motives improper? Are they weighted by somebody’s color or ethnicity or cultural background or something like that? That’s what — you know, that’s where, I think, you know, you have to sort of get into it, but you must, you know, NECESSARILY MAKE DISTINCTIONS EVEN AMONGST WHO IS BEING VICTIMIZED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Without a doubt he takes into consideration who you are as a qualifier whether justice will be pursued for a victim. Others have found themselves rigorously prosecuted on a minor or bogus charge, while others enjoy the get out of jail free card. You don't want to cross this man. He especially if he becomes a judge. He is not the intreped crimebuster as he likes to call himself, rather he is the intrepid good old boy protector.
He hid behind the immunity granted to district attorneys and believes this immunity will protect him even when done "with malice or bad faith." He can hide even deeper and further his shenanigans with the broader immunities granted to judges. Once he has that, he will use it. Of course we want the immunites to protect our elected judges, but this right has been terribly abused by Noel Waters. He has acted arbitrary and capriciously and he thinks it's okay. He is transparent. Further testimony given by Noel Waters that same day;
Q Is there circumstances under which you, as a District Attorney, are entitled to absolute immunity and are protected at
all levels of your job performance?
A Yes, although I have a certain amount of confusion about just how far that extends. The immunity doctrine, perhaps for immunity, as I understand it, for a prosecuting official, extends to acts which the prosecutor does that are inherently part of the judicial function, which is the charging, the decision to charge, the forensic function of presenting the case in court and that sort of thing.And that, as I understand, absolute immunity, there —it extends to even actions which are done with malice or in bad faith or for some ill will, spite or hatred, which is pretty broad, obviously. It doesn’t extend — absolute immunity does not extend to investigative decisions or advice that is given to investigators.
Q And does the absolute immunity protect judges in the same fashion as you describe it in the performance of their
A Yes. In fact, it’s even broader. My understanding of the judicial — I mean, virtually everything a judge does in the course of his duties is within that judicial function, and I — I am not aware of any real exceptions to that. For instance, you know, in a judge’s giving directions or orders or what not, if it’s part and parcel of what the judge does in terms of process, or decision or fact finding, anything having to do with that, there’s absolute immunity. And again, civilly, you know, I don’t know, because it has never come up in my mind about, you know, criminal — you know, criminalize it. It’s sort of unusual to have that situation occur.