Dec. 15, 2003
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
We’ve All Read About Them, But Do We Know What A Grand Jury Is? Or Does?
by David Thompson
Of all the institutions of American government, the grand jury is perhaps the most ancient, most mysterious and least understood.
Supporters have praised the grand jury system as a safeguard against the rule of tyrants, while critics have condemned it as an instrument of oppression. To see why, you have to understand the history of the institution.
The History of the Grand Jury System
The grand jury is one of two types of juries which currently operate in the United States -- the grand jury and the petit jury. The petit (small) jury, usually just called "the jury," decides the guilt or innocence of an accused in a criminal trial, and issues of liability in a civil trial. A petit jury is impanelled to hear only one case, and after it hears that case, it is discharged. The grand jury, on the other hand, serves for a period of time and hears many cases -- not just one.
Today's grand jury has three main functions: (1) in criminal cases, it decides whether a crime has been committed and if there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with that crime; (2) it reviews the performance of elected officials, and rebukes them if the officials are found to have acted improperly; and (3) it makes recommendations or reports on ways to improve the health, morals and government of the community it serves.
The first grand juries appeared about a thousand years ago, in England. During the reign of the Anglo-Saxon King Ethelred II, in 978-1016 AD, twelve leading citizens in each community were chosen to identify and accuse wrongdoers. These twelve citizens were knights, and if there were not enough knights, the twelve were made up of "free and lawful men." For example, the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 AD called for an inquest in each county of England to testify whether there were "robbers, murderers or thieves or if there were people who harbored robbers, murderers or thieves" in the county.
These first grand jury inquests took place before there was any provision in the law for trial by jury. At the Assize of Northampton in 1176, "anyone charged before the king's justices with the crime of murder, theft, robbery or receipt of such offenders, of forgery or of malicious burning, by the oath of twelve knights of the hundred; if there were no knights, by the oaths of twelve free and lawful men" was tried by ordeal -- not a jury of their peers.
By the time of King Edward III, in about 1368 AD, the sheriffs of the counties of England began to select 24 knights to serve on a "grand inquest" for that county. The grand inquests of the sheriffs originally supplemented the local grand juries, and later all but replaced them. The duties of the grand inquests went beyond merely accusing persons of crime and began to include monitoring government functions: "The inquest was required to present those whose duty it was to keep in repair bridges, causeways and highways, for neglect of duty; to inquire into defects of gaols and the nature thereof, who ought to repair them and who was responsible for any escapes which had occurred; if any sheriff had kept in gaol those whom he should have brought before the justices. . .".
By the time of the late Stuart monarchs, between 1660 and 1688, many people considered the English government oppressive and unjust. During this period, grand juries started to act independently of the wishes of the rulers of the realm. In 1681, when the King's officers instructed a grand jury to vote and return a bill of indictment for high treason against Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury and Stephen Colledge, the grand jury refused and told the royal officers that the bill was "not true."
After the overthrow of the Stuart monarchs in 1688, the grand jury system settled into its routine functions. Feeling that the system had outgrown its usefulness, Great Britain abolished grand juries in 1933.
The system has had a more exciting history in the new world. When English settlers began to colonize North America, they took the institutions of the grand jury and trial by jury with them. The first American grand jury was held in 1635 in Massachusetts, and by 1683 all of the American colonies had some form of grand jury.
The grand juries in the American colonies soon became notoriously independent of royal influence. A presentment by a Pennsylvania grand jury in 1685 denounced various public evils and suggested specific public improvements be made to curb those evils, and in 1735, a New York grand jury refused a demand by the colonial governor that they indict John Peter Zenger, editor of "The Weekly Journal" newspaper, for libel. In 1765, a grand jury at Boston refused to indict the leaders of colonists protesting the Stamp Act. In 1769, another Boston grand jury "indicted British soldiers quartered in the town for offenses against the populace, while at the same time refusing to indict persons charged by the royal authorities with inciting these soldiers to desert."
By refusing to return bills of indictment, American grand juries were able to block criminal proceedings by the English King against rebellious American colonists. A Philadelphia grand jury refused to indict rebellious colonists in 1770, and went so far as to propose a protest against the same English tax on tea that had resulted in the "Boston Tea Party." Through these events, Americans came to identify the grand jury system with traditional concepts of independence and liberty.
In 1791 Congress ratified the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1791, requiring the use of grand juries to protect citizens in criminal cases. That amendment reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..." Many of the constitutions of the various states of the union also recognized the grand jury system as a fundamental bulwark of freedom against oppressive government.
Nevada is one of those states. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and Article 6, Section 5, authorizes grand juries, while Chapter 172 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) contains most of the laws which govern grand jury proceedings. The next section of the article will review how the grand jury system works in Nevada.
The Grand Jury System in Nevada
In Nevada, the common law authority of the grand jury has been extensively limited by enactments of the state legislature, particularly in 1985, and by a series of judicial decisions. An attempt by the State to "streamline" grand jury proceedings in 1893 and reduce the grand jury pool to 12 men, out of which 10 men would be chosen to serve on the grand jury, was held unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court in 1895. State v. Hartley, 22 Nev. 342, 40 Pac. 372 (1895).
In a series of laws beginning with the 1949 legislative, the state legislature has all but eliminated grand juries in the smaller counties. In 1949 the legislature removed the requirement that a grand jury be called in each county at least every four years, and placed the decision to call grand juries within the discretion of the district judge for counties in which less than 1,000 votes were cast in congressional elections. By 1983 grand juries were mandatory at least once every four years only in counties with a population of 30,000 persons or more. The 1985 session of the state legislature restricted the requirement for mandatory grand juries only to counties with a population of 100,000 or more.
The 1973 session of the state legislature limited the powers of the grand jury in their reports on government operations by amending NRS 172.175(3) to read: "No report issued pursuant to this section shall single out any person or persons which directly or by innuendo, imputation or otherwise accuses such person or persons of a wrongdoing which if true would constitute an indictable offense unless the report is accompanied by a presentment or indictment of such person or persons."
In 1985 the state legislature introduced a series of new laws affecting grand jury sessions. These laws:
- allowed an attorney to accompany a witness under consideration for indictment during his appearance before the grand jury;
- provided a person under consideration for indictment the right to appear before the grand jury under certain conditions;
- allowed a subpoenaed witness the right to exercise his constitutional privilege against self incrimination;
- provided certain options for the district attorney upon being informed by a witness of his intent to exercise his constitutional privilege against self incrimination; and
- required the district attorney to submit any exculpatory evidence of which he is aware to the grand jury.
In 1985, the state legislature also made it more difficult to convene a grand jury by mere popular sentiment. As recently as 1983 the population of a county could require a district judge to convene a grand jury by presenting a petition containing the signatures of 75 registered voters or voters equal in number to 5% of the voter turnout at the county's last general election. The 1985 session of the state legislature revised this procedure to require a petition signed by 25% of the voters.
The state legislature also made it more difficult for the public to ask the state supreme court to order a grand jury be convened. As of 1983, if a district judge refused to convene a grand jury, all that was required to petition the state supreme court was a corroborated affidavit by a taxpayer which set forth reasonable evidence of misappropriation of public funds or property by a public officer, or any fraud or violation of trust. In 1985, the state legislature provided that a petition to the state supreme court would be restricted to circumstances under which the district judge was required to convene a grand jury but refused.
Nevada has no grand jury which is regularly summoned to review the conduct of affairs in state government. The governor, or the state legislature by concurrent resolution, can summon a grand jury to investigate state affairs in any county, but such a grand jury must limit its investigations to state affairs, and to the conduct of state officers and employees. NRS 6.135.
Today, although the executive branch presents cases to the grand jury, NRS Chapters 6 and 172 provide for judicial supervision of grand jury proceedings, subject to certain constitutional limitations arising out of their common law function. See the Constitution of Nevada, Article 6, Section 5, NRS 6.110, NRS 6.130, NRS 6.145, NRS 172.045, NRS 172.047, NRS 172.095(1), NRS 172.097(1) through (3), NRS 172.255(3) and (4), NRS 172.267(3), NRS 172.271, NRS 172.275, and NRS 172.285. In addition, the
Nevada Supreme Court has held that the supervisory powers of the courts over grand juries go beyond those powers expressly set forth in the statutes. Lane v. Second Judicial District Court, 104 Nev. 427, 760 P.2d 1245 (1988). (was this changed from the common law system by the 1976 constitutional amendment?)
A district judge in Nevada may convene a county grand jury whenever he feels it is required by the public interest. NRS 6.110(1) and NRS 6.120(1). If the county has a population of 100,000 or more, a district judge must convene a grand jury at least once every four years. NRS 6.110(1). If the county does not have a population of 100,000, a grand jury will not be called except by order of the district judge or a petition signed by 25% of the voter turnout at the county's last general election. NRS 6.120(1).
Presently, a district judge is required to convene a grand jury only under two circumstances: (1) the county has a population of 100,000 or more and there has been no grand jury convened in over four years; or (2) the district judge has been presented with a petition calling for a grand jury and signed by 25% of the voter turnout at the county's last general election. Under these two circumstances only, if the district judge refuses to convene a grand jury, an interested person may petition the Nevada Supreme Court to have a grand jury convened in that county. NRS 6.140.
If citizens residing in a county with a population of less than 100,000 persons want a grand jury, their only recourse is to ask the district judge, NRS 6.130, or circulate a petition, NRS 6.132. If the district judge is asked to convene a grand jury and refuses, the citizens have no recourse other than to vote against him when he runs for re-election.
Selection of Grand Jurors
The selection of grand jurors is regulated by two laws -- NRS 6.110 and NRS 6.120. In counties with a population of 100,000 or more, the selection works like this:
"The clerk of the court under the supervision of the district judge presiding over the impanelling of the grand jury shall select at random the names of at least 500 qualified persons to be called as prospective
grand jurors. The clerk shall then prepare and mail to each person whose name was selected a questionnaire prepared by the district judge stating the amount of pay, the estimated time required to serve and the duties to be performed. Each recipient of the questionnaire must be requested to complete and return the questionnaire, indicating thereon his willingness and availability to serve on the grand jury. The clerk shall continue the selection of names and mailing of questionnaires until a panel of 100 persons who are willing to serve is established.
A list of the names of persons who indicated their willingness to serve as grand jurors must be made by the clerk of the court and a copy furnished to each district judge. The district judges shall meet within 15 days thereafter and shall, in order of seniority, each select one name from the list until 50 persons have been selected. A list of the names of the persons selected as proposed grand jurors must be made by the clerk, certified by the district judges making the selection and filed in the clerk's office. The clerk shall immediately issue a venire, directed to the sheriff of the county, commanding him to summon the proposed grand jurors to attend in court at such time as the district judge directs.
The sheriff shall summon the proposed grand jurors, and the district judge presiding over the impanelling of the grand jury shall select at random from their number 17 persons to constitute the grand jury and 12 persons to act as alternate grand jurors. If for any reason eight or more proposed grand jurors fail to appear, additional proposed grand jurors sufficient to complete the panel of grand jurors and alternates must be selected from the list of prospective grand jurors by the district judge presiding over the impanelling, and the persons so selected must be summoned to appear in court at such time as he directs." NRS 6.110(1)-(3).
NRS 6.110(5) provides: "If for any reason a person selected as a grand juror is unable to serve on the grand jury until the completion of its business, the district judge shall select one of the alternate grand jurors to serve in his place."
In counties with a population of less than 100,000 persons, the selection works the same way but with a smaller pool of potential grand jurymen. The county clerk selects only 50 persons at random, and continues until a pool of 36 persons willing and able to serve has been selected. From those 36 persons, the district judges, voting alternately according to their seniority in the district, select 17 persons to constitute the grand jury and 12 persons to act as alternate grand jurors. NRS 6.120(1) and (2).
The Two Types of Grand Juries
Of grand juries in Nevada there are two types: those generally impanelled and those impanelled for a specific limited purpose. NRS 6.120; NRS 6.130; NRS 172.047 and NRS 172.175. A general grand jury has certain mandatory areas of inquiry, set forth in NRS 172.175(1), as well as permissive areas of
inquiry, set forth in NRS 172.175(2). The duties and obligations of a limited grand jury are detailed in a separate statute -- NRS 172.047.
General Grand Juries
NRS 172.175 ["Matters into which grand jury shall and may inquire"] provides:
1. Each grand jury that is not impanelled for a specific limited purpose shall inquire into:
(a) The case of every person imprisoned in the jail of the county, on
a criminal charge, against whom an indictment has not been found or an
information or complaint filed.
(b) The condition and management of any public prison located within the county.
(c) The misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county which may constitute a violation of a provision of chapter 197 of NRS.
2. A grand jury that is not impanelled for another specific limited purpose may inquire into any and all matters affecting the morals, health and general welfare of the inhabitants of the county, or of any administrative division thereof, or of any township, incorporated city, irrigation district or town therein.
In any statute, use of the term "shall" imposes a duty to act. NRS 0.025(1)(d). The term "shall not" imposes a prohibition against acting. NRS 0.025(1)(f). The term "may" confers a right, privilege or power to choose whether or not to act. NRS 0.025(1)(a).
Grand Juries for a Specific Limited Purpose
NRS 172.047 states: "A district judge may impanel a grand jury to inquire into a specific limited matter among those set forth in NRS 172.175. In that case, the judge shall charge the grand jury as to its limited duties and give it such information as the judge deems necessary. A grand jury that is impaneled for a specific limited purpose shall not inquire into matters not related to that purpose. A grand jury impaneled for a specific limited purpose may be discharged after the grand jury completes its investigation and submits its report. If the grand jury has not completed its investigation and submitted its report within 1 year after it was impaneled, it shall, in a closed hearing, show cause to the judge why it should not be discharged. If the judge determines that it is in the public interest for the grand jury to continue its investigation, the grand jury may continue for a period which does not exceed 1 year."
D-Fence, D-Fence
Democrats Gather in Reno
Following what many in the party consider a disastrous 2002 election cycle, Washoe County Democrats have begun working to change the complexion of the statehouse and local governments. There are no democrats holding statewide office at this time, and with exception of Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, no Silver State democrats in congress.
Statewide voter registration tips towards republicans, but only slightly, with the majority of democrats in southern Nevada. As of October of this year, 374,603 Nevadans are registered as republican while 366,301 are democrat. A lack of organization has been cited by many for the demise of party representatives in public office.
The presidential caucuses are to be held in February, and Washoe County Democratic Party Chair, Chris Wicker wants the north end of the state to be representative. The Reno lawyer says he believes the party is motivated.
At the national level, democratic U.S. Senator Harry Reid, is gearing up for a major campaign even though no republican of any significance has indicated a willingness to take on the Number Two senate democrat. Nevada Treasurer Krolicki has said he is giving the race a long look, but has not made a decision at press time. There have been other rumblings, but Reid is setting up his campaign as if he would be facing the strongest possible challenge, even to having Hollywood types come to fund raisers.
The executive director of the Nevada Republican Party, Chris Carr has been quoted as saying the democrats were very unorganized in 2002, and “I haven’t seen anything to the contrary since that election cycle.”
More Good Economic News From Statewide Gaming Figures
Although the increases certainly weren’t exceptional, they were an indication that Nevada’s gaming economy isn’t losing ground, despite all the talk of Indian gaming taking the thunder from the Silver State. Figures for October, 2003 are generally above October, 2002 figures.
Statewide, there was an increase of 1.5 percent in the overall casino win, topping out at $819.4 million compared to $807.2 million in October, 2002. The major gaming counties generally showed increases with the exception of Elko County. The figures included in the graph below are in millions.
County October, 2002 October, 2003 Percent change
Clark County 654.3 664.5 +1.55
Washoe County 88.9 89.7 +.91
Carson/Douglas 8.3 9.1 +9.62
Elko County 19.4 18.3 -5.94
Balance of State 10.6 11.3 +6.20
According to figures released by the Nevada Gaming Control Board, Downtown Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and the Boulder Strip areas of Clark County showed decreases in casino wins, and in the north, Sparks also showed a decrease.
Overall, of the $819.4 million, slot machines were the big winners for casinos, bringing in a total of $563.2 million, while table games showed a take of $250.4 million, and sports books raked in $6.6 million.
The Flu Season is Worst in Years, But There is Some Good News
State health officials are saying this year’s flu season is more severe than last year’s, but then, if you happen to work or play in a public area, you already know that. School officials are begging parents not to send sick children to school, class rooms are short or even void of regular teachers, and state facilities are running out of vaccine.
During the first week of December, there were 3500 cases of influenza reported statewide. There is a difference between reported cases and the number of people suffering. Many simply go to bed and suffer, and don’t go to a doctor or clinic. It’s those looking for brownie points and go to work and infect the entire office or school that are creating such havoc right now. Some schools in northern Nevada have given thought to suspending classes, but that hasn’t happened.
There is good news however. According to state Epidemiologist, Dr. Randall Todd, there haven’t been any confirmed deaths related to influenza in Nevada. On the down side however, it’s been reported the vaccine that’s been distributed in the state doesn’t cover the specific type of flu running rampant in the state. They still say, though, you should give serious thought to getting an injection.
The health department has not issued an epidemic or pandemic alert. There is no sure way to not come down with influenza, but an injection of vaccine is always good, washing hands is helpful, and staying away from those who have the flu is best. If you come down with influenza symptoms, stay home.
Rate Increases For Natural Gas to be Heard by PUC. Decision Made in June
by Johnny Gunn
Southwest Gas Corporation, saying they have been plagued by continually rising natural gas costs, is asking for major increases for both southern and northern Nevada residential customers. Southwest is asking for a two tiered increase, the first to take effect in March, and the second, in June. If the state Public Utilities Commission accepts the proposals, then the March increase would be retroactive since no decision will be made on the increase much before the middle of the new year.
Southwest is asking for $59.8 million more through higher rates in southern Nevada, and $16.7 million in the north. PUC spokesman Dave Chairez said that following the filing, certain procedures must be followed including time set aside for public comments, formal and informal hearings, and of course, official notices. Following the request for a rate increase, a period of 180 days is set aside for hearings and other procedures. A determination on the current request is expected sometime during the first week of June.
By law, a utility might be able to recoup their costs from rate payers as long as regulators, that is, the PUC, determine the costs were prudent. Natural gas prices have been rising continually, and it’s expected that they may continue so. Prices of $2 to $3 per 1,000 cubic feet of gas that was the norm in the late 1990s have been fluctuating between $4 and $10 recently.
These increases in costs are affecting the electric power manufacturing and distributing companies as well, and many are looking to increase the use coal in their power plants. Environmental issues are also part of the increases, as drilling for natural gas is being cut back. From an environmental point of view, the use of natural gas to manufacture electricity is a better fuel, the plant is more economic to run, and to build, but those cost factors are changing.
One answer to reducing the costs of natural gas is by importation of liquefied natural gas, LNG, from overseas petroleum fields. LNG has been challenged by many environmental groups as well as by communities that might be near LNG distribution facilities from a safety standpoint. Liquefied natural gas is natural gas that has been super cooled to well below zero degrees and therefore takes up much less space than would natural gas at normal temperatures, but should there be an accidental release, the volume could create a massive explosion. The possibility of importation is years in the future. There aren’t any tankers available today to haul LNG.
According to the Nevada Energy Buyers Network, natural gas prices hit a high of $10.78 per 1,000 cubic feet in March of 2003, and the current price is about $5.45. During 2003, the price fluctuated between a low of $4.00 in November, to that March high of $10.78.
Southwest Gas Corporation has no wells of its own and is looking to pass on costs from its suppliers to Southwest residential users. Most commercial users, in particular power companies, buy their natural gas directly from the pipeline companies. The formal and informal hearings are yet to be scheduled at press time.
Quadra Mining Set to Reopen Robinson Mine
White Pine County Economic
Shot in the Arm
by Johnny Gunn
With copper prices nearing the magic $1 per pound mark and gold over the $400 per ounce hurdle, mining activity in Nevada is expected to increase significantly during 2004. Economists in the mining industries agree that copper should be around that $1.00 per pound area before mining and recovery can be economically feasible.
A British Columbia, Canada mining company has just paid $18 million for the Robinson mine in White Pine County, closed since 1999. White Pine County has been known during the last 125 years as one of the areas of the country with large reserves of copper ore.
Quadra Mining is purchasing the Robinson Mine and other property from BHP Billiton, the world’s largest diversified resources company. The Nevada property is being sold for $18 million, but the complete deal is expected to top $91 million and includes one other north American property.
According to White Pine County Chamber of Commerce manager Evie Tinneo, “The company plans to start taking applications in February. I think this is going to be a big help to our economy.” At the time of its close, some 440 employees were laid off and indications are it will eventually take at least that many people to run the operation today.
The economy in the eastern county has been devastated by mine closures, population decreases, and this is the first good news to come that way in several years. The J.C. Penney story is scheduled to close soon, but according to Tinneo, a group of Ely business people have formed a cooperative and will maintain a general merchandise operation in the area. “We have a group of people who are real go getters,” she said. “Those in White Pine County like to shop local, and we’ll be able to do it. It’s good for the economy.”
Buzz around the state
by Our Correspondents
Storey County
Christmas on the Comstock
(Virginia City) A tradition of bright lights, winter weather, joyous seasonal music, and welcome mats from the business community await visitors to Virginia City and Gold Hill again this year as Christmas on the Comstock is celebrated. the tradition has had an on again off again history, but has been a regular feature of the season for several years in a row lately.
Among the various activities are programs at the Gold Hill Hotel, Piper’s Opera House, Fourth Ward School, and up and down the commercial main street, C Street. The Storey County Chamber of Commerce is leading the parade of activities, and can be contacted for more information at 775-847-0311.
Some activities have already taken place, before our deadline, but one very special event, The Boar’s Head Feat, a medieval dinner and solstice celebration, is scheduled for the 16th year at Piper’s Opera House on December 18. Ticket prices range from $18 to $24. For more information, call 775-847-0433.
Clark County
The Heavy Hitter is Smacked
(Las Vegas) Nevada attorney Glen Lerner had more than half a million dollars embezzled by an employee who has pleaded guilty to two county of felony theft. Dennis Franklin Morgan told District Judge Kathy Hardcastle that he had converted money from the flamboyant attorney to his own use.
Lerner, a big television advertiser statewide, always identifies himself as “The Heavy Hitter.” The Observer was unable to contact Mr. Lerner to get his take on the matter, although some news reports in southern Nevada are saying the attorney’s loss could be well over $1 million.
Morgan could face a heavy hit of his own, as much as 20 years in the big house for the offense.
Clark School Missing Money as Well
(Las Vegas) Questionable financial practices have led to the discovery of thousands of dollars missing from various school funds in Clark County. Clark County School District Superintendent Carlos Garcia won’t say whether anyone has been fired or reprimanded over the situation.
Much of the missing money was supposed to be in funds generated by student clubs, sporting events, special event sales and the like, and administered by district personnel. The discovery came by way of audits.
District general counsel, Bill Hoffman, says in cases of theft or embezzlement, the district usually tries to resolve the situation in house, but often must go to police for investigation. Some funds are returned only after small claims action is filed.
For those keeping track, the Clark County School District is the sixth largest public school system in the country.
Washoe County
New Events Center to be Built in Downtown Reno
(Reno) Reno construction firm Q&D Construction was the apparent low bidder on a 118,000 square foot events center to be built by the city of Reno and operated under contract by the Reno Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA). The price tag will be $27.1 million, and will be built across East Fourth Street from the National Bowling Stadium. Most of the sub contractors are expected to be Nevada companies according to Reno City Councilman Dave Aiazzi.
Construction is scheduled to begin the first week of January 2004, and according to Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, it will be open and operating by New Year, 2005.
Grand Jury Clears Juvenile Detention Facility
(Reno) Claims of sexual assault and beatings of inmates have not brought indictments from a grand jury probe of Washoe County’s juvenile detention facility. The grand jury did make some recommendations dealing with inspections during late night hours, and an increase in late night staffing.
Two lawsuits have been filed against Wittenberg Hall on behalf of juveniles, filed by Reno attorney Carter King. King indicated the changes suggested by the grand jury would help in the future.
In the meantime a new detention center is being planned in the neighborhood of the Parr Boulevard county jail facility. Crowding at the current juvenile hall is a major problem according to the grand jury report. The new facility, to be named the Jan Evans center, will have room for 108 inmates while the current Wittenberg Hall can sleep only 75.
The juvenile facilities are designed to hold children between the ages of 8 to 18, if they are determined to be a threat to themselves or others, or have committed a criminal act. Children who are truants or runaways are held at the McGee Center.
Carson City
(Observer Capital Bureau) With claims of gang activity running high at Carson High School, claims of profiling by the Carson City Sheriff coming from Washoe Indians, and general discord at other schools, the capital school district has been working overtime to put a lid on the problems. According to a report issued recently, violent incidents at Carson City schools have dropped by about 50 percent compared to this same period a year ago.
The report cites 134 incidents that caused students to be suspended during the first three months of the 2002 school year, while this year, that number has been reduced to just 62 district wide. There are about 2600 students enrolled in capital schools.
Mike Mitchell is director of operations for the school district, and he says a combination of more police on campuses, training of staff, and an overall understanding of school violence has led to the decrease.
