DA’s office must turn over witness payment documents, judge rules

The Clark County District Attorney’s Office must make public dozens of records about payments made to witnesses in criminal cases, a judge ruled Thursday.

District Judge Susan Scann gave prosecutors until the end of the month to turn over documents to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which filed a lawsuit after the county’s top prosecutor, Steve Wolfson, refused to give the newspaper access to a database that contains details of benefits offered to people in exchange for their cooperation with prosecutors.

But the judge also ruled that some information may be kept secret. Prosecutors can withhold case information that could identify witnesses or informants who have not testified in court, Scann said.

Otherwise, Scann decided, prosecutors must make public the case number, the prosecutor assigned to the case, along with the incentive paid. That applies to 12 cases out of 130 in the database known as an Inducement Index. It’s up to the newspaper to dig up more information about the identity of the person who complied with the prosecution, the judge decided.

Only three people within the district attorney’s office were allowed access to the database, said Matthew Christian, a civil attorney for the office. Last month, prosecutors turned over a sample of nine entries from the index for the judge to review in private.

“It really is weighing two public interests,” Scann said. “There’s the public represented by the public safety concept in being able to use confidential informants and not have them disclosed versus the public interest in disclosure.”

The newspaper requested the documents in relation to a series of articles published in August about payments made by prosecutors but not always disclosed to defense counsel. Those articles prompted District Attorney Steve Wolfson to say his office would begin disclosing the witness payments to the defense.

Maggie McLetchie, a lawyer for the newspaper, had argued the public has a right to know what prosecutors are doing to move cases through the court system.

McLetchie said it’s unclear what the database covers, and the newspaper wants to know if the index is accurate.

The Review-Journal in court papers also has contended that the district attorney has either withheld or redacted numerous requested emails relating to the Victim Witness Assistance Center and its ledger.

On Thursday, the judge ordered prosecutors to hand over more than two dozen of those emails.

“The court ordered the production of a lot of key documents that we want in this case,” McLetchie said after the hearing. “And I’m encouraged by that. … There was no legal basis for a lot of the documents to be withheld.”

Review-Journal Editor Michael Hengel lauded the judge’s decision.

“This ruling is really important to us and the public,” he said. “And we are going to be aggressive about pursuing public records requests when we feel like we need to be.”

Among other records, Wolfson refused to make public an unredacted ledger for his Victim Witness Assistance Center’s checking account. A copy provided to the newspaper lacked such basic information as filing numbers for cases that involved payments to prosecution witnesses. Witness names and reasons for payments also were redacted.

Scann said the ledger should be turned over, though prosecutors may redact the names and addresses of witnesses who have not testified in court.

Christian had argued that identifying witnesses who cooperated could put them in future danger, even after they had already testified in open court. He also said that releasing details about informants or witnesses in ongoing cases could hamper a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

McLetchie called that “disingenuous” and “pure speculation.”

Contact reporter David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Find him on Twitter: @randompoker