Judicial Debate: Clark County District Court, Dept. 3: Candidates spar over Constitution, criminal sentencing

A trio of lawyers vying for a seat on Clark County District Court debated constitutional issues, punishment for criminal defendants and their experience practicing law.

Adam Ganz, a civil lawyer; Monica Trujillo, a public defender; and Michael Miceli, a criminal defense and labor law attorney, are in a primary race for Department 3, a seat being vacated by District Judge Douglas Herndon, who is running for the Nevada Supreme Court.

The job pays roughly $165,000 per year.

The debate inside the Las Vegas Review-Journal studio marked the first of 23 for the more than 70 candidates in judicial primary races for the Supreme Court, District Court and Family Court. The Review-Journal has invited all judicial candidates who appear on the June 9 primary ballot to participate in the debates.

The top two finishers will advance to November’s general election. But if the first-place finisher gets more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, that candidate will win the election.

The candidates were asked by moderator Victor Joecks, a Review-Journal columnist, whether they considered the Constitution a “living document” or whether judges should adhere to the original text.

Ganz called himself a “strict constructionist.”

“I actually believe the words written on those statutes have meaning,” he said. “The legislators took a significant amount of time they put in those statutes, and I don’t think that judges should be altering those statutes.”

Miceli said he considered the Constitution a working document.

“There is always room for change, if and under the right circumstances,” he said. “But I do believe in following the law, and I will follow the law to the best of my ability.”

Trujillo responded with a discussion of “judicial restraint.”

“I don’t think judges should add to what is written in the law already or detract from it. I believe they should follow the law, and yes, there is room for interpretation.”

Judicial elections in Nevada are nonpartisan, and candidates are limited in what they are allowed to say on the campaign trail. Nevada’s Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits candidates from making “pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.”

Ganz, licensed in Nevada since 1998, touted more than 20 years of work in civil litigation.

“This race is about qualifications,” he said. “Qualifications not only in the number of years of experience, but qualifications in the areas of experience. I have nearly as much legal experience as both of my opponents combined.”

Miceli, who has been licensed in the state since 2006, said he has specialized in criminal defense and labor law, handling traffic tickets, murders and representing “almost every single union in this town in one way or another.”

“I am in court every single day in my practice,” he said. “My opponents cannot say that. I believe that courtroom experience is the most important, not the amount of years you’ve been practicing.”

Trujillo, licensed since 2008, started her career as an attorney in Las Vegas with the Clark County Public Defender’s office. Since 2013, she has worked with the county’s Special Public Defender’s office, representing defendants facing murder charges.

“Not only have I served on the front lines of the courtroom for over a decade, but I am a compassionate person with integrity, and my work ethic is unmatched,” Trujillo said. “I have dedicated my career to helping people.”

The moderator also asked the candidates about their discretion while punishing criminal defendants.

Miceli pointed to diversion programs, rather than prison, for nonviolent offenders.

“Violent crimes are going to be harsher than property crimes,” Miceli said. “I think you have to take every case separately. But I am in favor of trying to keep people out of prison, for the most part. There are certain people who need to be in prison, but there’s a lot of people who don’t need to be in prison.”

Trujillo said she would weigh punishment on a case-by-case basis.

“Every case is different,” she said. “There are facts of every case that you have to consider. … It’s an individualized consideration, and I can’t say one way or another, only that I will look to every case on its own merit.”

Ganz said he would be “tough on crime,” while pointing out that he practices civil law and questioning whether his opponents, who practice criminal defense, would deliver harsh sentences.

“There should be some concern about how my opponents have represented individuals accused of crimes for so long and then we’re going to expect that they’re the ones who are going to bring down the hammer on these individuals who are convicted,” Ganz said. “I would have some concerns about them in that particular arena.”

Contact David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Follow @randompoker on Twitter.