DA’s office appealing removal from courthouse counseling scheme case

The district attorney's office is appealing a judge's order removing it from prosecuting an alleged courthouse counseling scheme involving defense attorney Brian Bloomfield.

"I think there are reasonable grounds to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Mike Staudaher, who obtained indictments against Bloomfield and four others in the scheme that played out in Las Vegas Justice Court.

District Judge Jessie Walsh issued the ruling from the bench Monday after a three-hour hearing.

Walsh said it was clear to her that the district attorney's office had a conflict of interest in the felony case because potentially one-third of the office's prosecutors could be considered witnesses. Defense lawyers had called 27 deputy district attorneys to the witness stand at the hearing.

Staudaher told Walsh that the deputies had no knowledge of the counseling scam and wouldn't be called as prosecution witnesses at trial. But defense lawyers argued that they still intended to subpoena several of the deputies.

Bloomfield, 36, former counseling service owner Steven Brox, 46, and juvenile probation officer Robert Chiodini, 41, were indicted in December. They were accused of providing prostitutes and other defendants with phony certificates of completion for court-ordered counseling and community service to resolve misdemeanor cases in Justice Court.

Later, in a superseding indictment, two new defendants were added to the case: Bloomfield's wife, Amber McDearmon, 28, and former bail bondsman Thomas Jaskol, 32. Bloomfield and the two new defendants were charged with conspiring to destroy evidence.

The deputies that the defense contends are witnesses routinely handled the Justice Court cases in which the suspicious certificates of completion turned up. None of the 27 prosecutors who testified on Monday recalled any of the details about those cases, which dated to 2008.

In a motion filed late Tuesday seeking to put a hold on the proceedings while prosecutors appeal, Staudaher accused defense lawyers of trying to "impair the function" of the district attorney's office by creating "a conflict where none exists."

"Because of the apparently new general defense tactic of attempting to have the district attorney's office recused from multiple cases because of perceived conflict issues, the state believes that guidance from the Nevada Supreme Court on this issue is imperative," Staudaher wrote.

Defense lawyers in other cases have sought, and in some instances obtained, the disqualification of the district attorney's office because of the association as a defense lawyer of newly appointed District Attorney Steve Wolfson.

Staudaher said in his motion that Walsh exceeded her authority by declaring a conflict in the Bloomfield case because of the ministerial role played by the prosecutors sought as defense witnesses.

"Simply because a defense attorney states that a witness is essential does not make it so, especially if that witness can provide no relevant or competent evidence to a potential jury," Staudaher wrote.

Contact reporter Jeff German at jgerman@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-8135.