Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson is still two years from the end of his term but he notched a victory in the Nov. 8 election.
Wolfson served as a high-profile advocate for Question 1, a statewide ballot measure requiring background checks on more types of gun sales. It won by fewer than 10,000 votes out of 1.1 million cast and lost in every county but Clark.
As he approaches five years in office, Wolfson faces adapting to a future with a much larger convention center and a stadium that could be home to an NFL team.
Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo has warned that additional crime might follow the additional visitors these attractions would bring to Southern Nevada.
The district attorney’s office is also launching a conviction review unit to investigate claims of innocence. Longtime public defender Dan Silverstein is heading the office, which is expected to begin work soon.
Also, the DA's office is preparing for the statewide legalization of recreational marijuana, which was also passed by Nevada voters on Election Day.
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS:
On the ballot measure that closed the gun background check loophole:
As the chief prosecutor for Clark County, I have a responsibility to do what I can to curb crime and specifically gun violence. Gun violence is on the rise nationally and particularly in Clark County. We’re about to set a record number of homicides this year.
I felt if there was something I could do to help attack gun violence. I should get involved. I checked into it. It wasn’t any easy decision. I know it’s controversial. I’m gun owner myself. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s right to defend themselves and to carry weapons.
At the end of the day, I do believe the passage of Question One will save lives. So that is why I chose to support it.
On how the new background check law will be implemented:
We’re not out for the law-abiding citizen. We’re not going to look at people who are following the law or who mistakenly don’t follow the law. We’re going to look for criminals. We’re going to look at people who should not otherwise have guns in their possession.
The private gun sales that are accomplished either at gun shows or over the internet to certain persons are causing a lot harm, a lot of tragedy.
We’re going to use appropriate discretion and reasonableness in the enforcement of this law.
On decision to suspend prosecution of people who fell under the description of Question 2, which is the ballot question that legalized recreational marijuana in Nevada:
For cases that are submitted to our office for offenders between Nov. 9 and Dec. 31, basically, from when the voters spoke loud and clear until the end of the year. We’re going to take a little different approach.
Rather than prosecuting them normally, we’re going to implement a situation where these misdemeanor offenders will be given a diversionary program, perhaps even a dismissal in exchange for a small fine.
The voters have spoken. We are in a different society today then we were 20, 30, 40 years ago. Not just in Nevada but nationwide. Whether you agree with it or not. That’s the trend. So, I think law enforcement needs to devote its resources accordingly. I’m not going to spend an inordinate amount of resources on persons who are possessing small amounts of marijuana.
On sales tax hike to hire more cops:
We need more police officers. The ideal ratio is two police officers per 1,000 residents. I remember as a city councilman – 8, 10 years ago – we were close to that ratio. But we’ve dipped below. I think we’re in the neighborhood of 1.7 – 1.8.
The sheriff… believes we need more officers and I agree. More officers have shown over the years to provide more public safety and that’s what we’re all about.
Not all of officers, as I understand it from the sheriff, are going to be out there patrolling. There is a lot of effort in community oriented policing, getting the officers out into the community, talking with our residents, talking with the various groups, because that helps prevent crime.
On how officer-involved shootings are handled now:
I think that we had a couple of high-profile officer-involved shootings just before I took office. The Stanley Gibson case. The Eric Scott case at the Costco in Summerlin. I think that brought a lot of attention to the way we conduct business here in Las Vegas.
The Department of Justice came in and they’re division did a whole study and came up with recommendations. Two of the most important recommendations for Metro is the de-escalation. Rather than arrive at a scene and do something to escalate the emotion and escalate the tension the new idea is to de-escalate, calm down, let’s wait.
And then the second thing is the recognition of the sanctity of life. I think that Metro has used these two ways of doing things and I think it has resulted in less officer-involved shootings.
On investigating officer-involved shootings have changed:
About five years ago, we had a couple of very controversial shootings. The police officers decided not to participate in the coroner’s inquest. They were not going to appear. They were not going to testify. So, there came a realization that the coroner’s inquest needed to be reviewed.
We came up with this new way of doing things which is the police fatality review hearing. It is very open. It is very transparent. Where the district attorney’s office presents the lead detective and that lead detective basically lays out the investigation.
In addition, there is a hearing officer and an ombudsperson and the ombudsperson is there to represent the family of the decedent and the public. They get a complete copy of the file so they can ask any of the appropriate questions. So, we have this public hearing. It’s aired on the county TV station.
If the final decision is that the officer acted within the law then I have chosen, this isn’t required by any law but I felt it the right thing to do, I issue a very lengthy, written opinion discussing why this officer used the force he did and why his actions were justified.
On the Conviction Review Unit:
In simple terms, many counties across the country have what are also called Conviction Integrity Units because prosecutors realize it isn’t a perfect system. There have been occasions where innocent people have been found guilty and sent to prison.
Years later, it was discovered, whether it be new evidence, DNA, false eyewitness identification, that this person is innocent. I decided to establish the first Conviction Review Unit in the state of Nevada because Clark County is the 13 th largest county in the country. We’re a big city. We have big city issues. I felt the need to establish this unit to look into primary claims of innocence.
If new information is brought forward, we will review it for cases that meet a criteria, which we’re in the process of establishing.
A second component of this Conviction Review Unit that I’m very proud of is best practices. We want to make sure here in Clark County as a prosecutor’s office are utilizing the best methods the most reliable methods of prosecution.
We’ve hired our first attorney. He is very seasoned, experienced former chief public defender to start up our Conviction Review Unit and I’m very excited about it.
How his office will find cases to review:
It’s not a person who claims they committed the crime in self-defense. It has to be a person who claimed their innocence from day one. In other words, they didn’t commit the crime. And it has to be generally cases where there is new information.
We’re not going to retry cases. We’re not going to go back and look at whether or not a jury could have found otherwise that is what an appellate processes is for. But generally, if new information, new evidence or information that something was wrong at the time that the person was prosecuted, we will take a second look.
On what prompted him to create the Conviction Review Unit:
It is not political. It is the right thing to do because I’ve been in this criminal justice system in this city for 36 years… I’ve been on both sides prosecution and defense. I believe it is the right thing to do because I believe there are people in prison who did not commit the crimes.
Steve Wolfson, district attorney, District Attorney