Judge denies Review-Journal’s request for details on DA’s payment system

The Clark County district attorney's office is not required to reveal case numbers on records about payments and other benefits made to witnesses in criminal cases, a judge ruled Monday.

District Judge Susan Scann had originally ruled in April that prosecutors must turn over to the Las Vegas Review-Journal the documents about people who testified, with a case number, the prosecutor assigned to the case and the incentive. The newspaper sued after the county's top prosecutor, Steve Wolfson, refused to give the newspaper access to a database and other documents related to witnesses.

But the district attorney's office resisted the judge's initial ruling, and in September, Scann backtracked on her April decision, saying that the newspaper couldn't have case numbers.

Without the case number, however, reporters would have no way to discern whether the inducements were disclosed to defense attorneys, said Maggie McLetchie, a lawyer for the newspaper.

The Review-Journal asked the judge to reverse her backtracking, but on Monday the judge denied the newspaper's motion.

The district attorney's office is still required to turn over a list of prosecutors' names and the incentives they offered, but it's unclear when that will happen.

The judge has said prosecutors can withhold any case information that could identify witnesses or informants who have not testified in court.

There are about 130 cases in the database known as an Inducement Index. It contains details of benefits offered to people for their cooperation.

The DA also convinced the judge to allow the district attorney's office to withhold documents such as emails sent by prosecutors to justify why a witness' rent needs to be paid. The district attorney has argued the witnesses would be in danger even if their name and location were redacted.

"We're not talking about confidential informants," McLetchie said. "We're talking about people who have testified in court. Once and for all, we want to see what this Inducement Index looks like."

Only three people within the district attorney's office were allowed access to the database, attorneys for Wolfson's office have said. Before making her April ruling, the judge reviewed a sample of entries picked by the DA's office.

The newspaper requested the documents in relation to a series of articles published in August 2014 about payments made by prosecutors but not always disclosed to defense counsel. Those articles prompted Wolfson to say his office would start disclosing the witness payments to the defense. At that time, his office gave the Review-Journal some case numbers in which payments were made, but not all.

McLetchie has argued the public has a right to know what prosecutors are doing to move cases through the court system. It's unclear what the database covers, and the newspaper wants to know if the index is accurate and being used for the purpose it was created.

McLetchie said she was disappointed by Monday's ruling.

The district attorney's office has "been doing everything they can from letting the public know about this program," she said. "This is further evidence of their long history of failing to comply with the law to disclose this information to defense attorneys. It's also a broader issue because it goes to the integrity of our criminal justice system. The district attorney has a pattern and practice of failing to disclose these payments. Nobody is furthered when the district attorney doesn't follow the rules."

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