FILED

Electronically
CR19-0341B
2022-02-21 04:12:59 PM
Alicia L. Lerud
1 CODE: 4185 Clerk of the Court
PEGGY B. HOOGS, CCR #160 Transaction # 8907541
2 Sunshine Litigation Services
151 Country Estates Cr.
3 Reno, Nevada 89511
(775) 323-3411
4 Court Reporter

6 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

8 THE HONORABLE LYNNE K. SIMONS, DISTRICT JUDGE

--oOo--
9

10 STATE OF NEVADA, Case No. CR19-0341A

CR19-0341B
11 Plaintiff, Dept. No. 10
vs.
12
JENNIFER LEE BALDWIN,
13 HERMAN ETHAN MATASAR,

14 Defendants.
_________________________________________________________
15

16

17 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

18 HEARING ON MOTIONS

19 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2022

20

21

22

23

24 Reported By: PEGGY B. HOOGS, CCR 160, RDR, CRR

1
 1 APPEARANCES:

2 For the Plaintiff: LUKE PRENGAMAN, ESQ.

Deputy District Attorney
3 1 South Sierra Street, 4th Floor
Reno, Nevada
4

5 For the Defendant RICHARD MOLEZZO, ESQ.

Baldwin: Law Offices of Richard Molezzo, PC
6 275 Hill Street, Suite 101
Reno, Nevada
7

8 For the Defendant ORRIN JOHNSON, ESQ.

Matasar: ORRIN JOHNSON LAW
9 611 Sierra Rose Drive, Suite B
Reno, Nevada
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2
 1 -oOo-

2 RENO, NEVADA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2022; 1:38 P.M.

3 -oOo-

5 THE COURT: This is the time for pretrial

6 motions in the State of Nevada vs. Jennifer Lee Baldwin,

7 Case No. CR19-0341A, and State of Nevada vs. Herman Ethan

8 Matasar, CR19-0341B.

9 Appearances for the State.

10 MR. PRENGAMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

11 Luke Prengaman for the State.

12 MR. MOLEZZO: Good afternoon, Judge. Rich

13 Molezzo on behalf of Ms. Baldwin, CR19-3041A. She is not

14 present.

15 MR. JOHNSON: And Orrin Johnson on behalf of

16 Mr. Matasar, who is present.

17 Can you hear me okay, Judge?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 Good afternoon, Mr. Matasar.

20 THE DEFENDANT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: All right. So today we have a

22 stipulation on the motions to be heard. However, I

23 believe that we have some preliminary matters to be

24 addressed.

3
 1 Primarily, this Court previously ordered that

2 Ms. Baldwin would be required to appear at all future

3 hearings. Where is she?

4 MR. MOLEZZO: Based upon my last conversation,

5 she's still in Florida, Judge.

6 THE COURT: And you communicated to her the

7 Court's requirement, and she heard it on Zoom, correct,

8 that she needed to be here?

9 MR. MOLEZZO: Absolutely.

10 THE COURT: And, in fact, we talked about it

11 again at the motion to confirm; correct?

12 MR. MOLEZZO: Yes. I have covered all my

13 corners, correct.

14 THE COURT: So what I understand is that she

15 sent some emails to my judicial assistant, which I did

16 not read and which were inappropriate to send, but do you

17 have a representation on, one, why she's not here and,

18 two, the status of your attorney-client relationship.

19 MR. MOLEZZO: Correct.

20 THE COURT: You have a lot of reverberation.

21 Can the court reporter hear him okay?

22 THE REPORTER: It's a little difficult, Your

23 Honor.

24 Do you know what number mic you have?

4
 1 MR. MOLEZZO: Number 1.

2 THE COURT: Try it now.

3 MR. MOLEZZO: Testing one, two, three.

4 THE COURT: Is that better, Ms. Reporter?

5 THE REPORTER: It is.

6 MR. MOLEZZO: Can I take this off?

7 THE COURT: As long as you're socially

8 distanced. I mean, this morning I reviewed the CDC

9 information from CDC that requires masks in all indoor

10 areas, so make sure you're socially distancing.

11 Go ahead.

12 MR. MOLEZZO: In reference to Ms. Baldwin, I

13 did have discussions with her multiple times followed by

14 text messages to her followed -- in an effort to have

15 dialogue regarding pretrial strategies, etcetera. That's

16 been difficult. The dynamic of her being in Florida is

17 difficult. Not having a primary address for letters is

18 difficult.

19 Anyway, she tells me in three or four

20 conversations ago, "Go to hell" and "F off."

21 I indicated to her, "Well, I'll have to share

22 that with the Court and my fellow attorneys," which I

23 did. I did share with her this morning when she called,

24 "You need to be here," and she was disgusted.

5
 1 We haven't had more than probably, I kid you

2 not, an hour-and-a-half dialogue in the six months I've

3 had the case. "I don't want you as my lawyer." "I can

4 choose who I want."

5 THE COURT: And so you've made attempts to talk

6 with her, and you've made attempts to discuss the case

7 with her, and she has not responded to those attempts to

8 reach her and talk more extensively?

9 MR. MOLEZZO: Correct. Yes, ma'am.

10 THE COURT: And it was very clear to her -- I

11 made it very clear to her, and did you make it clear to

12 her that she had to be here today?

13 MR. MOLEZZO: Today?

14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 MR. MOLEZZO: Yes, ma'am.

16 THE COURT: At 1:30 p.m.?

17 MR. MOLEZZO: Absolutely.

18 THE COURT: All right. So my inclination at

19 this juncture is to issue a bench warrant for her arrest

20 with nationwide parameters.

21 In addition, do you have her last known

22 address?

23 MR. MOLEZZO: I have it, but she's motel to

24 motel. I do have her phone number. I spoke with her

6
 1 this morning. I suggest that's the path to pursue.

2 THE COURT: Do I have anyone here from

3 Pretrial? All right. Pretrial Services most likely has

4 it.

5 The second question is, she posted a bond that

6 was put into place by the justice court in the amount of

7 $150,000; correct?

8 MR. PRENGAMAN: Your Honor, I want to say it

9 was more than that. I want to say it was in the 200,000

10 range. Justice court has a little bit different policy

11 as far as --

12 THE COURT: So in the online minute sheet, I

13 have it was 150,000 bail bond posted, at least from my

14 information here. I think the decision is -- obviously,

15 the bond is to ensure her appearance; she's very clearly

16 not here -- is whether or not to proceed with forfeiture.

17 I would indicate we're going to proceed with that.

18 I mean, the benefit is more people looking for

19 her; correct?

20 MR. PRENGAMAN: Yes, Your Honor. And I would

21 note that she knowingly has failed to appear. I would

22 request that the Court order that any bond or surety

23 posted be forfeited based on her failure to appear.

24 THE COURT: Did you wish to address that,

7
 1 Mr. Molezzo?

2 MR. MOLEZZO: Other than your authority to

3 demand someone be here -- and I respect that, Your

4 Honor -- but case authority has told me critical areas

5 are, as you know, plea, sentencing and trial.

6 Now, this is a motion hearing, and your

7 authority trumps. However, to go to the extreme of

8 forfeiture and maybe a property bond on a relative's

9 home, I don't know, but I would just suggest to you that

10 you probably have to continue the trial.

11 THE COURT: Well, I think what we need to do is

12 get as many people looking for her to get her here,

13 because the ramifications that we're going to talk about

14 in a couple minutes are significant, including to

15 Mr. Matasar.

16 So I am going to commence with forfeiture

17 today. Obviously, they can take the steps necessary if

18 they need more time to find her.

19 So that being said -- and I very clearly stated

20 and made my record that I had ordered her to be here and

21 that she had been reminded, not only by me, but by you.

22 Instead, it appears that she's not responding to you and

23 addressing you in a manner that does not certainly seem

24 to be appropriate. Nonetheless, if there's some

8
 1 breakdown in your attorney-client relationship, we've got

2 to talk about that today, too.

3 So I think that's what's before us is we wait

4 for her arrival, but then what's before us today are the

5 motions that you stipulated to be heard, which are, one,

6 the motion to dismiss.

7 Now, my notes said that Ms. Baldwin had not

8 joined in that motion, but your stipulation says that she

9 has.

10 MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I thought she had. I

11 thought Mr. Molezzo had filed a joinder to that.

12 MR. MOLEZZO: That was my desire, to join,

13 Judge. I apologize. I think I filed one on the motion

14 work.

15 THE COURT: Will you double-check, please?

16 Thank you.

17 We were just speaking about this because I

18 think the motion to dismiss is a bit different than the

19 Petrocelli hearing. So the motion to dismiss, based on

20 my research, particularly if she did not join, I believe

21 that I could rule on that today.

22 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. Can you say that

23 again, Judge?

24 THE COURT: That if she did not join, that I

9
 1 see the motion to dismiss as different than the

2 Petrocelli hearing. I think I can hear your argument on

3 the motion to dismiss.

4 Does anyone disagree?

5 MR. PRENGAMAN: Only, Your Honor, if

6 Ms. Baldwin has joined. So if she's joined --

7 THE COURT: No, there's no written joinder on

8 file, so she has not joined it.

9 I mean, I suppose if you verbally join -- I

10 don't know what the authority is, whether it has to be in

11 writing. That's certainly the preference of the Court,

12 and I indicated very clearly you had to tell me which

13 motions you were joining or not joining in. That was our

14 very first conversation.

15 So Mr. Prengaman.

16 MR. PRENGAMAN: Your Honor, I'll defer to the

17 Court on that, and I'll let Mr. Molezzo speak for

18 himself, but there were -- generally speaking, there were

19 quite a lot of motion work in this case. Mr. Molezzo is

20 saying that that is an oversight, as I think I just heard

21 him say, and at least the State is not going to oppose.

22 I do agree with the Court that absent that joinder, we

23 could go forward and argue that, but if Mr. Molezzo is

24 joining, certainly, in light of sort of the complex

10
 1 nature of all the things that were filed in this case, I

2 could understand an oversight. So if that's what he's

3 indicating, I'm not going to object to that.

4 THE COURT: So is it your intent to join in the

5 motion?

6 MR. MOLEZZO: I'll move to join, Your Honor,

7 and I apologize. Again, no disrespect. In the federal

8 system, you can, at the last moment, verbally move to

9 join, but they do respond better to writing, and I'm

10 sorry for that.

11 THE COURT: It's just because of -- that it was

12 filed by other attorneys, is why I was trying to get

13 everyone to be very clear about it. And I understand the

14 volume of material in this case, obviously.

15 So that being said, then it appears that -- I

16 was going to try to do the motion to dismiss today, but

17 it appears that that's not going to happen. So let's

18 move to something else.

19 MR. PRENGAMAN: I'm sorry. If I may, Your

20 Honor, may I address the amount of bail? I would ask the

21 Court impose $350,000 cash only, a substantial amount.

22 She obviously posted a substantial amount. That did not

23 ensure her appearance, so I would request --

24 THE COURT: And that was a bond -- I'll do 250-

11
 1 in cash at this juncture --

2 MR. PRENGAMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: -- on the bench warrant.

4 Okay. So procedurally, then, if we can't go

5 forward with any motions today because of her willing

6 nonappearance, is the Court precluded from considering

7 them at a point in the future, or do we have to have her

8 here?

9 I mean, for the Petrocelli, I think she has to

10 be here. Now, for the motion to dismiss, potentially --

11 MR. JOHNSON: I'll tell you -- and maybe we

12 even need to back up further and talk about this more

13 broadly.

14 I spoke very briefly with Mr. Prengaman at the

15 beginning of this hearing, asked him what his thoughts

16 were with, you know, knowing -- and I appreciate

17 Mr. Molezzo letting us all know that it was unlikely she

18 was going to be here today.

19 I know that this Court has already ruled

20 against severance. I didn't particularly need or

21 desire -- I didn't think the case should be severed. I

22 have litigated that issue before on the other side of the

23 courtroom where Mr. Prengaman is sitting, and I, frankly,

24 agree with him on the law as it respects severance. I

12
 1 didn't imagine the Court would grant it under those

2 circumstances, and I don't like to file motions that I

3 don't think the Court is going to grant.

4 The issue, though, that I have is that my

5 client has been in jail for four years. It is so

6 frustrating. And then on top of that, I've, literally,

7 rearranged my entire practice around this case and around

8 the scheduling of it. I can't push it out a month. I've

9 got another jury trial in Douglas County in March. I've

10 got another jury trial that I took as an appointed case

11 out of Lyon County in April.

12 I have a thriving practice, and I'm proud to

13 take the appointed cases. I'm glad it's part of my

14 practice. They are not the lucrative part of my

15 practice. And at some point, when I have to not take new

16 clients for three months to gear up and plan for this

17 case -- I'm glad to do it, it's important, but I can't do

18 it twice and all that sort of thing.

19 So my frustration is that, through no fault of

20 his own, Mr. Matasar is here and now once again faces the

21 prospect of rescheduling this, a guy who initially

22 invoked his right to a speedy trial and didn't possibly

23 imagine, I don't think, in 2019 that we were going to be

24 sitting here in 2022 talking about rescheduling for

13
 1 September or whenever it's going to be.

2 I suggest to you, Judge, even if they found

3 Ms. Baldwin tomorrow, hooked her, the possibility of

4 dragging her here and then her being ready for trial in a

5 way that would survive postconviction is about nil at

6 this point.

7 And so the question is, do we go forward as

8 scheduled on the 7th or during the stack, whenever it

9 is -- which is another thing I think we need to talk

10 about -- with just Mr. Matasar, even though it's going to

11 take a lot of extra work, because I understand it's extra

12 work for Mr. Prengaman because there's some changes he

13 has to make in his presentation of the evidence, but at

14 that point the interest of justice tilts strongly in

15 favor of severance. Because who knows when we're going

16 to find Ms. Baldwin? Who knows when she's going to be

17 back here? We can't wait indefinitely for her.

18 Mr. Matasar deserves his day in court, wants his day in

19 court, and so that's the issue.

20 If the Court is inclined to say we can't do

21 anything until she gets here, then I would ask that, at a

22 minimum, you consider releasing Mr. Matasar, who's

23 indigent, has no money, can't post -- obviously, at this

24 point, he can't post any bail.

14
 1 And so we'll stipulate to any possible

2 condition, ankle monitors, anything. He tells me he has

3 a place to stay in town, but at some point it becomes

4 outrageous. And I know the Court has carefully

5 considered all these things. I know you're frustrated,

6 too, but, God, I've never seen somebody wait this long.

7 Anyway, I appreciate you allowing me to vent some of

8 these frustrations, especially on Mr. Matasar's behalf,

9 but it's not just him. It's everybody else in the

10 situation we're in.

11 And so if we're going to sever, then I don't

12 know that we can't hear the evidence on the Petrocelli

13 motion. I think at some point Ms. Baldwin -- she knew

14 she was supposed to be here; she knew what we were going

15 to be doing -- at some point she waives her right to

16 complain later that she wasn't there to hear the

17 presentation of evidence in those.

18 I've got four witnesses, including police

19 officers who have a lot of things to do and including a

20 couple of folks who are involved in the Marks case,

21 including the victim in that case. I want to respect

22 their time because they've been gracious enough to come

23 and cooperate with me and all the rest of that sort of

24 thing. They're victims of crime, at least Ms. McMaster

15
 1 is, and I want to treat her with the respect and the

2 dignity that she deserves. I know Mr. Prengaman and his

3 office feel the same way.

4 And so I understand the Court's reluctance to

5 take any action without Ms. Baldwin here, but I suggest

6 to you that it is, at this point, impossible to keep

7 these cases together with any meaningful sense that

8 Mr. Matasar can know he can have a day in court at any

9 time in the future. So I think we need to get to the

10 fundamental issue of severance right now, and if we

11 decide that -- maybe we can't decide it today, I don't

12 know, but that's the issue that we really have.

13 THE COURT: And I was kind of going about it a

14 little bit differently, but I agree with you. That's why

15 I want to hear from you, because, obviously, my

16 order previously was that it didn't really make sense --

17 from a judicial economy standpoint, it did not make sense

18 that we should try the case once, have everyone here, and

19 then the pandemic hit and everything and the conflict

20 with attorneys. Nobody intended to be here in 2022, and

21 there's no reluctance to the sides, but I'm not going to

22 invite reversal. So I just want to make sure we take the

23 steps.

24 And the question and what I anticipated asking

16
 1 is, as we sit here today, I see that we're in a bit

2 different circumstance than we were when I decided the

3 motion to sever. Now, I have a couple of concerns about

4 going forward with trial. Currently, the plan is to have

5 it in this courtroom because I was anticipating more

6 people.

7 Secondly, I have another case that I'm waiting

8 to hear about tomorrow. It was on the motion to confirm,

9 but I had to continue it because there was some

10 extraordinary circumstances regarding language barrier.

11 So I gave them a week to come back to me and tell me if

12 they're going. Judge Steinheimer has a case. Judge

13 Sigurdson has two cases.

14 So what happens is when we get closer and the

15 cases fall off, then we can -- we have determined as a

16 district that we're only going to call one jury a day

17 currently because of the COVID-19 numbers being so high.

18 Practically, I think those numbers are so high, and

19 pretty much everybody I know is taking a home test and

20 are not even included in those numbers.

21 So, one, here's what I would like to do: I'm

22 first going to turn to Mr. Prengaman and ask the State's

23 position. Given all of the changes procedurally, and now

24 we're in January '22, what does the State want to do?

17
 1 Because the State didn't want to present their case

2 twice, nor did it make sense to have that cost accrue to

3 the County. But I don't know if that's changed, so I

4 want to hear about that.

5 Then we're going to talk about the stack. You

6 know, the goal is at this time to try to narrow down when

7 you're going. Everybody has to live with uncertainty

8 right now, and that's just the way it goes. We have

9 continuing subpoenas for that reason under an AO, but I

10 know it becomes a scheduling issue, and I have some ideas

11 for Ms. Lane. What she goes through during the weeks

12 before the trials start is amazing.

13 We've got to talk about COVID and how we will

14 handle this and then -- particularly because I'm aware of

15 Mr. Matasar's medical conditions, which fall squarely in

16 one of the vulnerable conditions on the CDC.

17 So I'm planning on addressing all of this, but

18 it starts with hearing from the State your position on

19 severance at this juncture.

20 MR. PRENGAMAN: Your Honor, I'm absolutely

21 opposed to it, and I will get to it more, but the

22 frustrations that were just expressed by Mr. Johnson will

23 only be magnified and pushed onto the State if we were to

24 sever, and I don't think we believe there's a basis to

18
 1 sever at this point.

2 But just those practical issues that he's

3 talking about. Two trials in this case results in

4 prejudice to the State. I have multiple out-of-state

5 witnesses that I rely on the courts outside of this

6 jurisdiction in that process. Multiple of those

7 witnesses have complained, tried to get out of it, tried

8 to claim hardship to not appear. Those are material

9 witnesses to the State's presentation. Getting them a

10 second time just right out of the blocks, that's an issue

11 for the State. I get them once and those courts order

12 them to appear here once, and most of them are coming

13 from across the country, from Florida, from Illinois.

14 That opens up the State to that prejudice. Am I even

15 going to be able to get those witnesses a second time

16 around?

17 On top of that, everything that Mr. Johnson is

18 mentioning to the State -- having to present the case

19 again, the cost, the inconvenience to all the witnesses,

20 the police officers, as he says, that have other things

21 to do as well -- they're just doubling the time that

22 they're going to have to spend.

23 On top of that -- and, again, this isn't even a

24 legal issue, but that would be allowing -- both parties

19
 1 have come into this court and tried hard to get

2 severance. I think from the pleadings it's clear that

3 both of them perceive their chances are better if they

4 can get a severed trial, but the law says that's not a

5 basis.

6 But what you would be allowing is Ms. Baldwin,

7 simply by the fact of failing to appear, to get what she

8 couldn't legally get, to create a situation where she

9 gets that severance, and that would be inappropriate,

10 Judge, and it would prejudice the State, and I can't

11 express that in the strongest possible terms.

12 Anything that Mr. Johnson mentioned on top of

13 that, and even more doubly for the State, will the State

14 suffer our ability to get justice for the interested

15 persons: The victim's family, who are very concerned

16 throughout this and have been involved; the police

17 officers who investigated. All the people who are

18 stakeholders in the outcome of this process will be --

19 their interests are prejudiced by severance and having to

20 try to do this again, bring this case again, a case of

21 this scale and size.

22 Legally, a severance is warranted for trial

23 prejudice. It is trial prejudice. Will the defendants

24 suffer at trial? And as the Court has rightfully

20
 1 determined, no, because there are no issues that they

2 will be prevented from litigating that they could do

3 separately in a trial that they can't do together. So

4 there is not trial prejudice, and that's the issue with

5 severance.

6 The State is entitled to try these defendants

7 together. They're entitled to charge them and try them

8 together unless there is trial prejudice, and so that

9 issue has been determined. There have been multiple

10 attempts to relitigate it and even relitigation of it,

11 and the Court has rightfully determined that these

12 defendants should be tried together. And Mr. Johnson, I

13 think, again, rightfully so, he acknowledges that's the

14 right call. Legally, that's the right call on that.

15 THE COURT: So I'm taking this as a renewed

16 motion to sever. The original motion was filed on behalf

17 of Mr. Matasar.

18 Was this one that Ms. Baldwin joined but then

19 withdrew her joinder?

20 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. And if I can speak a little

21 bit.

22 THE COURT: I want to frame it because I'm

23 going to ask a question because I am concerned about

24 arguing this.

21
 1 Were you finished?

2 MR. PRENGAMAN: No, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to have him

4 finish. I'm going to give everybody their time on this,

5 but I want clarity on that joinder and whether she has to

6 be heard.

7 Go ahead.

8 MR. PRENGAMAN: Your Honor, I feel so strongly

9 about that and the prejudice, knowing this case and,

10 again, the scale of the number of witnesses involved and

11 the issues involved. This case, the State is entitled to

12 try it together. The Court has determined it. And we

13 have -- even I think it's the Bifurt [phonetic] case with

14 a similar circumstance where, on the eve of trial, one of

15 the lawyers was allowed to withdraw, a death penalty

16 case, and that trial got continued because of that issue,

17 the one where we withdrew, that caused a continuance on

18 both defendants even though -- I can't remember if it was

19 Bifurt or his co-defendant, but opposed it and then tried

20 to claim, on appeals, speedy trial, and the Supreme Court

21 determined no speedy trial violation. It was a just

22 continuance prompted by the co-defendant. Those cases

23 were rightfully tried together.

24 So, Your Honor, if you feel the need -- again,

22
 1 to go back on the history of the case, I submit has it

2 been a long time? Yes. Have there been unforeseen

3 circumstances? Absolutely. Nobody could have foreseen

4 the pandemic and the issues created by that.

5 This is not something of the State's making.

6 The State, its witnesses, the stakeholders interested in

7 the outcome of this proceeding should not be prejudiced

8 or punished because of Ms. Baldwin's conduct, and she

9 should not be allowed to manufacture illegally what she

10 could not obtain legally in court.

11 If the Court feels the need to address that

12 issue in some way, the time -- which, again, if you go

13 back, I submit at each stage, yes, Mr. Matasar invoked

14 the speedy trial, but then he waived it to litigate. If

15 you go back and look at each stage of the proceedings, it

16 is not -- it is unfortunate, the length of time, but it

17 is not something that anybody could have foreseen.

18 Ss addressing bail status -- and, again, I'm

19 not advocating for that, I'm not agreeing, but I submit I

20 feel so strongly about that severance and the illegality

21 of it and the lack of trial prejudice and cases for it

22 and what that would mean, the benefit that would accrue

23 to Ms. Baldwin, that if you want to address his bail

24 status, I submit that's where the Court looks, not to

23
 1 severance. There is no trial prejudice. Nothing about

2 the Court's legal determination and the factors that went

3 into that denial of severance has changed. The focus of

4 that inquiry has not changed.

5 THE COURT: All right. So let's look at the

6 joinder. I don't see that she joined. Do you have

7 anything to the contrary?

8 MR. JOHNSON: Just for -- I don't mean this to

9 be argument, so if it sounds like it, please stop me.

10 The public defender filed the motion to sever.

11 THE COURT: I see that now. On September 6,

12 2019.

13 MR. JOHNSON: Right. The alternative public

14 defender joined. You denied it. They filed a motion to

15 reconsider. I believe the alternate public defender

16 joined that as well. That was responded to, and I think

17 it was even submitted, but it had not yet been decided.

18 THE COURT: The reconsideration?

19 MR. JOHNSON: Back in September, I think it

20 was, when I filed my notice -- maybe it was August -- my

21 notice of just -- you know, all the pleadings, I said

22 expressly that we abandoned that. I frankly disagreed

23 with some of the public defender's -- both their tactical

24 arguments and their legal arguments.

24
 1 I tend to agree with Mr. Prengaman, which is

2 always nice when we can find points of agreement, with

3 respect to some of those things. I actually think that

4 there's some real tactical advantage, quite frankly, in

5 keeping these together for a number of different reasons,

6 and I'll leave it at that. But for those reasons and,

7 again, recognizing the state of the law, I expressly

8 abandoned them.

9 This request is not -- this is not my

10 preference. All else being equal, I prefer to go to

11 trial and do this thing with Ms. Baldwin here. My only

12 argument with it is there's so much uncertainty about

13 when, if ever, we get Ms. Baldwin back here, that that

14 uncertainty is different. So I would ask that you

15 consider this as a completely new motion to sever for

16 completely different reasons. I don't know what

17 Mr. Molezzo's position is on that. I'll argue later, but

18 I want to make sure that my procedural position on that

19 is --

20 THE COURT: Is the lesser of two evils; right?

21 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Yes.

22 THE COURT: So it's not your first choice to

23 ask for it -- you abandoned it previously, very

24 clearly -- but that you find, under the circumstances

25
 1 here, based on your position that they were not caused by

2 Mr. Matasar, that there's a new basis for severance that

3 you're raising at this time in addition to the motion to

4 reconsider that was filed October 13, 2020, which was

5 abandoned.

6 I'm going to take your argument to be that in

7 opposition to any motion to sever here, including the

8 renewed motion. Acceptable?

9 MR. PRENGAMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: All right. So on a new motion to

11 sever, Ms. Baldwin, who is willfully not here, I think

12 you have to discuss that with her before you take a

13 position on whether you're joining in it or not.

14 MR. MOLEZZO: I'm not going to discuss that

15 with her, Your Honor. She keeps telling me to "f off."

16 I'll make an effort to do that and I'll give her a call

17 that's professional, but what I suggest you do,

18 respectfully, Judge -- this is extraordinary stuff -- in

19 reference to the severance -- and probably in the 20

20 trials I've had in my career, A and B level, I think I've

21 won one severance. So that's primarily the argument --

22 and maybe one stipulation to sever. The prosecution

23 always shares this with us. It's too time-consuming. It

24 makes the case too difficult.

26
 1 This is an ID case. Here's what I suggest you

2 do, respectfully: Either grant the severance and let

3 Mr. Johnson go forward, and if they find Ms. Baldwin two

4 years from now and I'm still alive, I'll take it again.

5 In the alternative, you have to continue this case.

6 Extraordinary stuff, Judge. We carry a burden.

7 Prosecution has to carry a burden as well. Let this

8 gentleman out. There has to be an infrastructure where

9 we can put a tag on his ankle or something along those

10 lines.

11 And it is an honor to be before you, and,

12 again, I tend to be the atypical lawyer in the way I

13 speak, but I did this to spend time with my friend

14 Mr. Johnson, and primarily to help Ms. Baldwin I agreed

15 to this appointment, but I don't want to jam you up

16 either, Judge.

17 Now, if you want to keep me on the case, that's

18 fine, you're welcome to do that, and I'll do everything I

19 can, but I need to share this with you on the record.

20 There's about a 90 percent chance I'm going to be running

21 for judge this '22 calendar season, Reno Municipal Court.

22 I just tend to overshare because I want folks to know

23 that. I'm meeting with the RPD political arm next week,

24 and it's for Reno Municipal Court.

27
 1 So that being said, if you said, "Molezzo, it's

2 your problem. God bless. I want you in this trial to

3 take care of Ms. Baldwin. She can't pick her lawyer,"

4 I'll be here for you, and I'm professional enough. I'll

5 do a bang-up job, I think, but I want you to know where

6 I'm at, and this lovely person, Ms. Baldwin, is going off

7 on me.

8 I can handle emotional, but I can see that it's

9 going to be difficult for us to communicate, and I

10 trust -- trust me, Your Honor, she's not so sad she has

11 to play the severance card, as the prosecution has

12 suggested. I would, respectfully, say you must,

13 respectfully, if you continue this, embrace the

14 extraordinary dynamic of COVID -- and it sucks, all due

15 respect for my language -- let Mr. Matasar out with an

16 ankle. All due respect to Mr. Matasar, I think he may

17 have one prior misdemeanor record.

18 This case is an ID case. I've known

19 Mr. Prengaman for a long time, and I consider him a

20 friend, and I trust him, but it's a tough case no matter

21 what, whether we're together, defendant and defendant, or

22 whether it's severed. It's an ID case. No forensics on

23 scene.

24 With that, I'll let you make your ruling, but

28
 1 if you continue with respect to Mr. Matasar, he needs to

2 be released.

3 Thank you.

4 MR. JOHNSON: Obviously, I agree with that.

5 Let's see. Where do I want to start here?

6 So I disagree to some degree with Mr. Prengaman

7 that the only reason to sever a trial is if there's

8 trial-specific prejudice. I think overall due process

9 considerations have to be taken into consideration.

10 For example, if we found out Ms. Baldwin flew

11 to Costa Rico and wasn't going to be extradited and was

12 in the wind for five years, we couldn't keep Mr. Matasar

13 in jail for five years waiting indefinitely for her.

14 That would be absurd.

15 And the case that Mr. Prengaman cited, the

16 situation where a lawyer withdraws at the last minute, is

17 different because in that case we have a pretty decent

18 idea of when a new lawyer can be appointed, how long it

19 will take to get up to speed, and so we have some

20 certainty that within a couple of months the trial can be

21 had again.

22 We have no such certainty here. She's,

23 literally, across the country. She's homeless

24 apparently, and having asked a judge or two to issue a

29
 1 bench warrant or two in my day, that's a tough sell.

2 I also, having prosecuted multiple co-defendant

3 murder cases before, am sympathetic to Mr. Prengaman and

4 his desire and his frustration with lots of witnesses

5 over a long period of time, getting them here. I suggest

6 to you that the prejudice to the State may not even be

7 that -- may be lessened if we're able to do this because

8 at least they're here and we can get them, you know, but

9 I understand his frustration with respect to Ms. Baldwin.

10 And I'm not here to discount those concerns

11 because everything Mr. Prengaman said about that is

12 totally valid. The issue, though, is that the

13 alternative is to just continue indefinitely, and then

14 where are we at?

15 Mr. Prengaman did not say that he would

16 stipulate to release Mr. Matasar on an OR, but what he

17 did say is that he felt so strongly about severance that

18 that would trump his considerations with respect to any

19 request, and certainly I'm about to make that request to

20 release Mr. Matasar.

21 If the Court is inclined to release

22 Mr. Matasar, who, by the way, barely is able to get

23 around without a wheelchair these days and who does not

24 have any criminal history outside of a bounced check case

30
 1 in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was the President, then -- and

2 I think a traffic ticket showed up on there -- he tells

3 me that he has a place to stay. I would certainly not

4 want him going anywhere, and if the Court is inclined to

5 do that, then I don't know that we need to argue a whole

6 lot more, because at that point -- and if you're not,

7 then I'm happy to -- I guess -- maybe I've said --

8 THE COURT: My concern here is, you know,

9 having it all laid out almost -- even though we're in a

10 different time and Valdez-Jiminez is law, but I still

11 think it's for cases that were filed after his. I still

12 think it's the reasonable factors to consider, and I

13 think there are reasonable factors to having a record.

14 So my contemplation here is -- in anticipation

15 of what I expect to be pretty robust arguments on

16 severance, I did reread all of the papers and, in

17 addition, did some specific research regarding situations

18 such as this, and I think both sides can argue that the

19 other side has no prejudice or has slight prejudice, but

20 the bottom line is the pandemic has probably caused some

21 prejudice all around. But is it undue? Is it unfair?

22 No, in that I am not going to sever this trial. That is

23 denied. The renewed motion is denied.

24 So for all the reasons I put in my prior order

31
 1 and based on your additional arguments, including the

2 case law, it's denied, and so we have that foundation.

3 What do we do from here? Because of the

4 unusual circumstances -- I'm not indicating whether I'm

5 going to grant it or not, but I will absolutely entertain

6 a written motion for a change in his custody status. I

7 think that the State has indicated its priority of

8 arguments, but I'm not sure what they would actually

9 respond to in writing based on now knowing I'm not

10 severing these defendants to go to separate trials, but I

11 will entertain a written motion for changing custody

12 status. I would invite you to if you can agree upon some

13 shortened time, but I want those factors laid out: Where

14 exactly he would be residing. Does he have the means for

15 GPS tracking? Does he have the means to post any level

16 of bond? Because I would like to have some bond in

17 place. And, you know, go through everything that

18 supports -- the lack of criminal history, obviously.

19 So let's move next to your case. What I think

20 has to happen is either you or she has to request a Young

21 hearing, and I cannot make a decision based on

22 information that I kind of heard or name-calling, which

23 is completely inappropriate to call you names to

24 frustrate the conversations with you, but is that enough

32
 1 to allow you to be relieved as counsel and get somebody

2 else in? I think that we have to hear from her, so

3 you're in until she's here, and that's my order.

4 MR. MOLEZZO: Okay. I'm going to share with

5 you the following: My conduct from this day going

6 forward is I'll make an effort to get ahold of her, but

7 I'm --

8 THE COURT: The one thing I was contemplating

9 is -- although when she's on Zoom, it moves a lot. I

10 always have to say, "Stop talking. Stop swearing. Stop

11 crying. Hold it still." I think if we had to, I could

12 probably make the appropriate findings that we could do

13 it by Zoom, but she's going to reveal where she is. So

14 part of that Zoom might be somebody taking her into

15 custody, but I would consider that procedurally.

16 All right. So what do we do with the trial

17 date? So your trial date, the weeks -- when we laid out

18 all the trials and all the moving parts and looked at the

19 numbers for COVID right now, I requested to be in here.

20 I think the jurors would be more comfortable.

21 Department 6 is pretty tight, and for the safety of

22 Mr. Matasar due to his medical condition as well as

23 counsel. And, you know, apparently there's some new

24 variant coming out, but what the concern is and what

33
 1 we've been examining -- and I've been specifically

2 talking to the Eighth because they've limited their

3 trials to five days. They will not hear a trial over

4 five days, and I wanted to get to the bottom of why,

5 because I thought perhaps it was all the different

6 quarantining, and if you are fully vaccinated, you do X,

7 and if you're not fully vaccinated, you do Y.

8 So the Court has to be prepared to ask jurors

9 that very question, which I don't think is a HIPAA

10 violation because we're not a healthcare provider, but

11 some might be uncomfortable.

12 But the real gravamen of why -- it isn't the

13 quarantine. It is because they kept losing jurors on the

14 weekends. So they would come in on Monday morning to

15 continue the trial and not have their jurors.

16 With regard to my -- I had a trial that was to

17 go previously, but because of my own possible exposure,

18 we ended up continuing it, but it was really the first

19 time that I think the jury commissioner and the court

20 administrator were very concerned that we may not be able

21 to keep a jury the whole way through. In the Eighth,

22 they're having six alternates, and so my contemplation

23 was this room, more alternates and just get it done.

24 So with that being said, I just want to look at

34
 1 the latest -- we had some movement going on. If my

2 trial -- if he waives, that will affect the order. If he

3 does not waive, I will be going at some point in that

4 first week.

5 What I had asked was to go after Judge

6 Steinheimer's -- and she has a two-week, so you were

7 going to be at the end of February -- to try to give you

8 more of a date certain.

9 So there's a couple of options we have. Based

10 on the current -- the trials go off -- I mean, literally,

11 another one went off this morning. One, you can keep the

12 trial on and see if we get Ms. Baldwin here and deal with

13 it all on the record. I agree with your evaluation that

14 it's probably nil that we're be able to get her here, get

15 the Young hearing done.

16 MR. MOLEZZO: Virtually no chance, Judge.

17 THE COURT: And it was hard to get counsel

18 appointed in this case, so that's the other thing that's

19 coming down the pike.

20 MR. MOLEZZO: Well, I'm glad I accepted the

21 appointment. I just need my client to talk to me.

22 THE COURT: So under all of that, we can keep

23 your trial date on, or we can agree that we're going to

24 continue it now and let you -- I can look at the trial

35
 1 flights. February was really heavy because everybody

2 thought we were going to be outside of COVID. Everybody

3 was happily setting all their civils and other cases

4 because they thought, oh, there's no way we're still

5 going to be doing what we're doing.

6 So with all that in mind, what would you like

7 to do?

8 MR. JOHNSON: So the issue I have is this: I

9 knew the trial flight could bleed out a little bit later.

10 As to the motion to confirm, it was my understanding,

11 based on what I heard at the motion, that we were -- I

12 heard that there's that one that we're a little

13 uncertain, but I think that was, what, scheduled for

14 three days or something brief?

15 THE COURT: It's a five-day.

16 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So if there's a one-week

17 delay, that would be inconvenient. I've got a pretrial

18 hearing on my March case in front of Judge Young down in

19 Douglas County on Tuesday, March 1st, but obviously I was

20 aware that -- you know, we all have to be flexible.

21 But to start the trial at the end of February,

22 I would then have to bump another trial, may have to bump

23 another trial.

24 THE COURT: It's not to start. It would be the

36
 1 second half of February with still trying to finish, and

2 here's why --

3 MR. JOHNSON: It's my understanding -- and

4 forgive me for thinking out loud a little bit. I

5 appreciate the indulgence.

6 I spoke a little bit with Kate Hickman of the

7 public defender's office this morning, and I know that

8 Judge Steinheimer's trial is hers with Mr. Bolenbaker at

9 the D.A.'s office, but she tells me that's a 14-day

10 trial, which if the trial flight starts on the 7th, that

11 takes up the whole month of February. Mr. Prengaman

12 probably knows more about that than me, but that's my

13 concern.

14 THE COURT: So our flight goes -- nobody is

15 guaranteed a particular time. You're lumped into four

16 weeks, and it's a stack, and then what we do is

17 prioritize them.

18 Now, what we can do -- I mean, obviously, the

19 issue with Ms. Baldwin came out of the blue. We have to

20 take the invokes first. We have to.

21 MR. JOHNSON: I understand.

22 THE COURT: And, Ms. Lane, you can correct me,

23 a voice from the audience, if I'm incorrect, but there's

24 three invokes; right: Mr. Watson, Mr. -- no, wait.

37
 1 There's only mine. The other two have change of pleas

2 done.

3 THE JURY COMMISSIONER: The only invoke

4 remaining is your case.

5 THE COURT: So it's a five-day case, but it's a

6 Spanish interpreter case, so I think it's definitely

7 going to be five days.

8 But there were some language barriers in

9 counsel having an opportunity to really meaningfully have

10 a discussion with Mr. Urbina Acosta, so I will know

11 tomorrow, and I don't know if he's going to change his

12 plea, I don't know if he's going to waive, but they've

13 had another week. So then we have your case,

14 Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Matasar, and then Mr. Hernandez.

15 So the trial memo, it's not set in stone.

16 We're moving all the parts because Judge Sigurdson also

17 has a case, so it's all the different -- how we can get

18 them in on the days and who has waived.

19 So mine was kind of floating because we can

20 only -- what we have decided as a district is to call one

21 jury a day. We were doing two or three, but it's the

22 movement down here; correct?

23 THE JURY COMMISSIONER: That's correct.

24 THE COURT: So you want to -- if we get a

38
 1 calendar out --

2 MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. And let me just say kind

3 of more broadly and universally, I want Mr. Prengaman to

4 have a fair trial. I don't want to screw around any more

5 than we have to. I want all that to be done correctly.

6 I want all of us to have a fair trial.

7 I am happy ordinarily to continue it. My

8 great, great, great agitation has to do with

9 Mr. Matasar's custody status.

10 THE COURT: Correct, but we're going to address

11 that.

12 MR. JOHNSON: Beyond that, I'm happy to be as

13 flexible as possible to the extent that I'm not hurting

14 any of my other clients.

15 My expectation at this point, honestly, given

16 the amount of work that it's going to take -- and, again,

17 I've been there, I know -- Mr. Prengaman to get everybody

18 rescheduled and resubpoenaed and across state lines and

19 all that sort of thing -- and I've got a vacation

20 scheduled mid-July -- we're probably looking at -- Luke,

21 correct me if I'm wrong -- we're probably looking at

22 August, September, realistically.

23 THE COURT: So you are agreeing to continue it?

24 MR. JOHNSON: I don't think I have a realistic

39
 1 choice.

2 THE COURT: I think that's all of us. I mean,

3 I think all of us are wanting to go forward, but the fact

4 of the matter is for certainty --

5 MR. JOHNSON: I want the record to be clear

6 that Mr. Matasar is desperately desirous to have his day

7 in court, to go to trial. I think that the evidence is

8 very, very weak, and he has maintained his innocence from

9 the beginning, and I understand that. And I'm not hear

10 to argue the trial, but that's his position.

11 And so I don't want to just, sure, Judge,

12 however long you want to set it, and I don't want

13 Mr. Matasar to think that's what I'm doing, but I think

14 now we're sufficiently clear that he knows that that's

15 not my position.

16 THE COURT: So, Mr. Prengaman, under the unique

17 circumstances at hand with Ms. Baldwin's situation, do

18 you agree that the matter should be continued?

19 MR. PRENGAMAN: I do, Your Honor, for this

20 reason -- and I disagree with what everyone says. I

21 don't think the evidence in this case is as weak as

22 everyone tries to make out. But I look at it this way:

23 The State -- I wish we could go forward as scheduled with

24 COVID, but I don't think that's going to happen.

40
 1 I believe -- I don't think it's going to take

2 nearly as long as portrayed to get Ms. Baldwin in

3 custody, but there's still a process to get her back here

4 once she is in custody, and so I have that in mind as

5 well as the Young issue, because I look down the road,

6 and I'm not prejudging or suggesting -- I don't really

7 have any particular insight other than what Mr. Molezzo

8 has said, but we certainly could be in a situation that

9 if we got her back in time and the Court appoints another

10 lawyer -- and I know that may or may not happen, but that

11 could certainly happen, and what that means is there's an

12 awful a lot of people who have been on the hook for quite

13 a while.

14 And I do have a number of issues. Right now, I

15 could go on the 7th with really no significant witness

16 issues. We could go on the 14th with witness issues that

17 I believe I could move around and address and call

18 witnesses out of order. Go past that, and I start to

19 have some significant witness issues.

20 So just so the Court -- I do agree for those

21 reasons because I feel we're going to get to our trial

22 date and be in a position where we're going to continue

23 it anyway.

24 THE COURT: I think your witnesses would

41
 1 appreciate more notice than less.

2 MR. PRENGAMAN: That's my point, Your Honor.

3 If I was playing the odds, I would say even when we get

4 Ms. Baldwin back, that we're not going to go as

5 scheduled, and I agree. And every day we do, there's a

6 significant amount of work that goes into this case, and

7 not just from the State, but there's a significant amount

8 of work in a trial of this scale every day that we go on.

9 So, yes, I think that ultimately and unfortunately, I

10 think, even before we go forward or try to go forward,

11 we're not going to be able to, and I would rather make

12 the call now based on the evidence we've looked at before

13 us than wait two or three weeks to make the same

14 decision.

15 THE COURT: So here's what we're -- let me ask

16 you one more question, all of you.

17 One, I am going to continue the trial based on

18 counsel's statements and arguments or observations.

19 Two, is there anything that would preclude the

20 Court from appointing co-counsel for Ms. Baldwin now?

21 MR. MOLEZZO: No. I think that's a smart play.

22 Get ahold of the conflict -- I'll do that. That's

23 happened to me in the past.

24 THE COURT: I think that may help bridge some

42
 1 time, and I don't see any legal preclusion to appointing

2 co-counsel for her. You know, we're still going to

3 examine whether she really has -- if she meets the

4 criteria for me to allow you to be relieved as serving as

5 counsel, but I think it's a solution that I was

6 contemplating. So I'm going to go forward with

7 appointing co-counsel for her.

8 MR. MOLEZZO: Thank you.

9 THE COURT: But you're still on the hook.

10 MR. MOLEZZO: I'm emotionally ready, Judge.

11 Thank you.

12 THE COURT: And then with regard to -- I am

13 going to seriously consider -- I've got to tell you it's

14 very difficult, given the underlying charges, which is

15 why I want it in writing, well-supported. I don't want

16 to get into a situation where he can't afford what he's

17 going to do. I would like some sort of bond. I'm not

18 saying 500,000, but I want -- and I want assurances

19 because you're going to be -- Mr. Prengaman is going to

20 be able to address it.

21 MR. JOHNSON: And just to preload, you know,

22 this will all be in writing. He's been in jail for four

23 years. He's not making any money. In fact, one of the

24 things that we talked about is, you know, if -- you know,

43
 1 if he were to be released, there's even concern about

2 where he gets his diabetes meds that he needs to live.

3 He's also got -- and at this point, too, I'll

4 just tell the Court -- I have this all, and we're going

5 to talk about it as mechanics or trial stuff, because it

6 will cause a little bit of an issue. He was wheeled here

7 in a wheelchair. He's got a walker. He's got lots of

8 medications. He's got increasing heart issues. He has

9 to see a specialist, and no knock on the jail because

10 they do as good a job as you can, but that's not a

11 therapeutic environment, you know, and that's where it

12 is.

13 But then we also have the issue of, you know,

14 just some of those things. I'll tell you he is at this

15 point so indigent, I don't know what, if any, monetary

16 issue is there. I'll address this all in writing. We'll

17 offer up every last possible -- supervision and that sort

18 of thing.

19 I would tell you -- and I just want to plant

20 the seed for both you and Mr. Prengaman -- this is

21 exactly the sort of case where somebody who is profoundly

22 indigent and what little money he may have or may be able

23 to get is probably feeding into his medical issues and

24 that sort of thing.

44
 1 THE COURT: That's fine.

2 MR. JOHNSON: So I don't want that to be the

3 issue that precludes him because I think that's improper,

4 but I'll make all those arguments.

5 Again, I want to front-load and make sure our

6 cards are on the table with respect to that.

7 THE COURT: And I was thinking nominal, but

8 does he have -- and he also should make sure he has

9 Medicaid, evidence that he's applied, that he --

10 MR. JOHNSON: We'll work on that.

11 THE COURT: I need to see a plan. And it's not

12 any disrespect to counsel. I want it in writing. I want

13 to see all the pieces. Because this is a very serious

14 charge, and there's a huge difference in opinion on what

15 the end verdict is going to be here so -- and I think the

16 State should be able to address it thoughtfully, and I'm

17 not giving any indication what I will ultimately decide,

18 but I can guarantee I won't decide it without seeing all

19 those factors.

20 MR. MOLEZZO: In regards to Ms. Baldwin, Your

21 Honor, I will share with her the next court date via

22 text. That's --

23 THE COURT: So when is the next court date?

24 Because we can't take much action on Friday; correct?

45
 1 MR. MOLEZZO: Pardon?

2 MR. PRENGAMAN: No, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Well, I could be here.

4 So here's what I'm going to tell you to do:

5 You all have your calendars because I know -- I know

6 everybody has a conflict. I will tell you that towards

7 the end of August, early September, somewhere in there --

8 I don't know when yet -- but I will have to be out of

9 town, but we will work it within the flight, and we'll

10 try to get -- because your case is aging, you're going to

11 be moving up the ranks. So it's really going to be

12 invokes that are going to control that, but I think also,

13 in the future, we'll have more trial rooms, spaces

14 available, and we'll be able to do two or three --

15 assuming whatever variant is coming out doesn't get us,

16 but we will be able to have more juries.

17 So we are really at a critical point right now.

18 I don't know that we're going to determine that we're

19 going to start limiting the time of trials. We want to

20 get through them.

21 And so I would like you to call the jury

22 commissioner. I would like you to have my JA on the line

23 as well and my court clerk, and I want you to set the

24 trial in a flight, and I want you to set the hearing

46
 1 dates for these pretrial motions because it was hard to

2 get them set, and I would like to get those done -- we've

3 got to deal with the counsel, etcetera, but I think if we

4 can get them on your calendar and my calendar for even a

5 full day or day and a half and days that are right

6 together, I think your witnesses will be happier. We can

7 get through them and get them done.

8 And then the last question I have for you is --

9 my recollection was that with prior counseling, that

10 Mr. Matasar and Ms. Baldwin appeared for a settlement

11 conference in front of -- was it Judge Sattler?

12 MR. PRENGAMAN: It was, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: So the other -- I can't direct you,

14 obviously, and I wouldn't direct you, but I would suggest

15 that you have a conversation about whether it makes sense

16 to pursue any other type of -- if the parties consent to

17 it, given this time. I don't know if it's a possibility.

18 I have no idea what the State would be willing to offer,

19 but a lot of time has gone by, so I think that -- I'm

20 just making an observation that you might want to talk

21 about that with your colleagues.

22 MR. MOLEZZO: Are you referencing, Judge,

23 negotiations for alternative charges?

24 THE COURT: Yes.

47
 1 MR. MOLEZZO: You have that authority to do

2 that, to suggest that.

3 THE COURT: But I can't order you to.

4 MR. MOLEZZO: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

5 THE COURT: You have to consent to do it, but

6 I'm just suggesting that with the time passage -- I don't

7 know if there's any appetite for it, so it's really an

8 observation.

9 Because what I was thinking is at some point

10 I'm going to do a thorough Loffler canvass, and so I was

11 thinking backwards from that.

12 MR. JOHNSON: And I noted that in my trial

13 statement, so there was -- I didn't get any of those

14 documents from the public defender's office. I know

15 that -- I've done a couple of the settlement conferences.

16 I did the first one with Judge Freeman, and I think

17 they're great.

18 In all candor, I don't know that that's

19 probably going to -- but I will say that since I have

20 been on the case, there has not been an offer conveyed

21 formally, and so I am -- I'll say this right now on the

22 record -- I am always standing by, ready, willing and

23 able to talk about anything with anybody, including off

24 the record, thinking out loud about offers.

48
 1 Mr. Matasar has indicated to me he is not

2 interested, but my phone number has been provided to

3 Mr. Prengaman on many occasions. I'm happy to chat with

4 anybody anytime about any of that stuff.

5 MR. MOLEZZO: I would join.

6 THE COURT: So you're going to set two days of

7 hearings back to back, and you're going to set the trial

8 in this case, and you still expect it to go 10 days? Is

9 that what it was, or 15?

10 MR. PRENGAMAN: 15, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: All right. And let's hope that we

12 don't face these circumstance again.

13 MR. PRENGAMAN: May I ask, if the Court is

14 inclined, would the clerk or appropriate personnel notify

15 me when the warrant is ready? Because I would propose to

16 have probably a member of the police department pick it

17 up so it can be entered in the NCIC.

18 THE COURT: So what he wants to know is if when

19 I sign it and it's ready to go, that you notify him.

20 THE CLERK: Yes.

21 MR. PRENGAMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

22 MR. MOLEZZO: Please notify me as well,

23 obviously.

24 THE COURT: We'll notify you as well. He was

49
 1 asking specifically to convey it to -- everybody is going

2 to know.

3 MR. MOLEZZO: I want to thank you for

4 co-counsel. That was very kind, Judge. If I decide to

5 run or file for Reno Municipal -- the filing date is

6 March 7th -- I will let you know.

7 THE COURT: And I know and I appreciate the

8 information. I don't think I can consider that in making

9 my decisions.

10 MR. MOLEZZO: No. Not at all.

11 THE COURT: But I appreciate you advising me.

12 All right.

13 We'll be in recess. Thank you, everyone.

14 MR. PRENGAMAN: So, Your Honor, you are

15 vacating the trial date?

16 THE COURT: Yes. It will be continued to be

17 reset.

18 MR. PRENGAMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

19 (Proceedings concluded.)

20

21

22

23

24

50
 1 STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss.
2 COUNTY OF WASHOE )

4 I, PEGGY B. HOOGS, Certified Court Reporter in

5 and for the State of Nevada, do hereby certify:

6 That the foregoing proceedings were taken by me

7 at the time and place therein set forth; that the

8 proceedings were recorded stenographically by me and

9 thereafter transcribed via computer under my supervision;

10 that the foregoing is a full, true and correct

11 transcription of the proceedings to the best of my

12 knowledge, skill and ability.

13 I further certify that I am not a relative nor

14 an employee of any attorney or any of the parties, nor am

15 I financially or otherwise interested in this action.

16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the

17 laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing statements

18 are true and correct.

19 Dated this 21st day of February, 2022.

20

21 /s/ Peggy B. Hoogs

_____________________________
22 Peggy B. Hoogs, CCR #160, RDR

23

24

51