EDITORIAL: DA must open witness payment program to scrutiny
The Clark County district attorney‘s office has worked to keep much of its witness payment program secret for years by arguing that confidentiality was necessary to protect witnesses. But it’s painfully obvious that payments have been shielded from public scrutiny to protect something else: prosecutors‘ rear ends.
At some point, every outrageous detail of the witness payment program will be made public. It would be far better if District Attorney Steve Wolfson disclosed every record of every payment in every case -- including those made before he took office in February 2012. If he doesn‘t, he can count on his office being formally investigated and dragged into court again and again, until every potentially compromising check is disclosed and the public knows whether the money unfairly tipped the scales of justice in prosecutors‘ favor.
The latest revelations about the program have renewed calls for an outside law enforcement review of witness payments. As reported Sunday by the Review-Journal‘s Bethany Barnes, in 2009, under then-District Attorney David Roger, the office identified major problems with witness payments but didn‘t disclose them. Among the improprieties: fake subpoenas to support witness payments and an estimated $337,200 in wasted money, including overpayments for witness mileage and payments that allowed officers to double-dip by collecting their law enforcement salaries and witness compensation at the same time.
The most obvious question is whether funds, through direct payments or bogus subpoenas, bought testimony to rig criminal cases or were acts of outright theft. The gravy served to officers -- "no small sums incidentally," according to a 2009 email from Terry Johnson, then Mr. Roger‘s director of administration and a current member of the Gaming Control Board -- was obviously improper.
Did we mention that Mr. Roger eventually left office to work for the Las Vegas police union? What a coincidence! He didn‘t respond to the Review-Journal‘s request for comment on his administration of the program and the bonuses he provided to officers. Silence always says more than spin or denial.
These findings follow a Review-Journal investigation that uncovered the existence of an off-budget checking account within the witness payment program. Prosecutors covered witnesses‘ expenses for more than a decade, including rent that sometimes exceeded $1,000, to ensure their testimony. And defense attorneys sometimes weren‘t notified of the payments -- denying them the ability to question witness credibility.
The Review-Journal had to sue Mr. Wolfson under the state‘s public records law to obtain case information tied to the checking account, and although a judge ordered him to release dozens of those records, Mr. Wolfson hasn’t fully complied. He’s trying to re-litigate the case to keep documents secret. The court mustn’t allow that.
It‘s entirely possible that witness payments have compromised numerous criminal cases by violating the rights of defendants. That so many potentially illicit payments were kept hidden from the courts is an egregious abuse of process that demands immediate review.
Complete transparency is overdue. Open your books, Mr. Wolfson. All of them.
