Nye County, where they have liberal activist unethical newspaper writers who are ashamed to admit this and where the Sheriff jailed a woman hours after the death of 3 kids and her friend without filing any charges now has another case of corruption int he courthouse.
From the Pahrump Valley Times: Emotions ran high in District Court on Monday as a judge again denied bail for a man jailed since August on charges of killing his daughter’s boyfriend.
It was the second time attorneys for Daniel Robbins have failed to sway Judge Kimberly Wanker, who initially denied bail for the suspect back in October.
Robbins is alleged to have shot and killed 21-year-old Chris Mundy during an early-morning confrontation in the front yard of the suspect’s home on Aug. 18. A 14-year-old boy with Mundy that morning was also shot. His injury was not life-threatening.
Robbins is facing a first-degree murder charge in Mundy’s death, among other felony charges.
Two Las Vegas attorneys representing Robbins argued two motions before the judge, one asking for charges against him to be dropped, the other asking that in the least bail be set in the amount of $100,000.
Dan Winder, who represented Robbins during the October hearing, argued Monday that police didn’t properly inform Robbins of his rights the night of his arrest. He also said that police didn’t charge Robbins correctly when they filed first-degree murder charges.
But this is where it gets better:
Robbins’ second attorney, Arnold Weinstock, then argued that Robbins deserved bail in the case. The former gaming control officer with police training had no prior criminal history, after all, the attorney said.
“Under normal circumstances, your honor, this defendant should probably, based on his lack of criminal history, based upon his ties to the community, based upon his family, based upon his prior employment, he probably should have been released on a minimal bail. Probably in the neighborhood of $15,000 to $20,000, probably just to ensure his appearance,” the lawyer said. “What I would submit to the court is that this defendant should be released on $100,000 bail.”
If the bail wasn’t enough, Weinstock argued that the court could additionally confine Robbins to his home, thereby safeguarding himself and the community.
White argued again that what Weinstock was telling the court was nothing new and that the court made the right decision by denying bail earlier.
“I just think as the court said last time, probably the most important point, is he’s better off where he’s sitting right now for everyone’s safety. Why take a chance?” the prosecutor said.
Wanker later read a lengthy statement into the record justifying her ruling. She continually referred to Robbins volatility and the volatile nature of the case.
In a bit of a twist, she acknowledged that she was aware of recorded jail house comments made by Robbins that disparaged her — he used derogative terms for women to describe the judge in a conversation with his wife, including calling Wanker a whore.
“When I saw the comments, I actually kind of chuckled to myself,” the judge said during court.
Later, in her ruling, she said, “Mr. Robbins, please understand that as a District Court judge, criminal defendants are not going to like me and they are going to call me names. I am sure you are not the first, nor will you be the last to use those comments about me. Understand, it does not faze me; it will not affect how I rule in this case … I could really care less.”
Apparently "Judge" Wanker already has a decided that the defendant is guilty of murder by what she says. She appears to be a very biased judge who should not be on this case at all because of her prejudice.
Further, bail is not supposed to be punitive nor protect the community. Bail is used to guarantee a person will show up for court hearings and trial. If bail is used to keep supposed dangerous people in jail, then we shouldn't release 3/4 of those arrested and never allow bail who are repeat offenders.
Clearly, "Judge Wanker" must have gotten her law degree from a box of Cracker Jacks because she certainly doesn't understand the law nor does she understand that she is supposed to be neutral in cases.
They say justice is blind, but in "Judge" Wankers case it is also deaf, dumb and stupid as well.