9 11 12 0204 63341 shoeless jim leslie email to wcpd leslie a

7/28/2019 9 11 12 0204 63341 Shoeless Jim Leslie Email to WCPD Leslie A

1/10

ClosePrint

Shoeless Jim Leslie

From: Zach Coughlin([email protected])Sent: Tue 9/11/12 3:51 PM

To: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]

Dear Mr. Leslie,

Please explain why you refused my express demands to make

arguments at Trial and the Suppression Hearing and cite to specificlaws, cases, and statutes, or otherwise put on evidence related tothe valuation of the property alleged stolen (it clearly was worthless than the $250 required, as even Goble testified at Trial that iswas worth about $100 at the time of the arrest, and I provided toGoodnight, and therefore you, evidence and support that it wasworth even less than that.

Please get your investigators working. Carlson admitted he hasdone no work on the case, but merely sat in on two hearings,supporting my contention that you like to leverage your coworkersfor your own CYA purposes, rather than do any actual work,Dogan included (your conduct in this manner even extended into

the courtroom at Trial, amazingly....). I think you need to prepare aDraft for my review immediately of some Motion for Relief fromthe ORder following the Suppression Hearing, including, but notlimited to, your failure to cite to and argue the existing facts thatsupport the following:


2/10

NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made:...

2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7p.m. and 7 a.m., except:

(b) When the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer;

(c) When the person is found and the arrest is made in a public place or aplace that is open to the public and:

(1) There is a warrant of arrest against the person; and

(2) The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause forthe arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another allegedviolation or offense;

(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and theperson makes an arrest immediately after the offense is committed;

Sec. 8.10.040. - Petit larceny.

It is unlawful for any person to take or carry away the property of another withthe intent to deprive the owner of his property therein, in any value less than$250.00, and for his conviction therefor, he shall be fined in an amount not morethan $1,000.00 and/or be incarcerated not more than six months. In addition toany other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.

The arrest in this matter fails on every element of NRS 171.126(2)(b)-(d).

Further, while it is quite questionable to infer evidence of guilt based upon the

fruit of an impermissilble search, DETAINING, terry pat down, or SEIZURE of

Coughlin himself (if the police want to know if someone is a diabetic, they can't

hold them somewhere until they go into a coma from lack of insulin, likewise,

they can't hold Coughlin around until they figure out a way to conduct a "search"

(calling the phone), while Coughlin was handcuffed, despite the pat down

apparently being over, according to DDA Young, and no exigent weapons or

safety concern being present (there is an argument that Coughlin could have

taken a number of actions to which he would have been entitled, on a Fifth

Amendment basis and otherwise, had he not continued to be handcuffed and

detained (Coughlin himself was essential being "seized")

Further, the excuplatory videos, and tape of Coguhlin's own 911 call clearly establish that a citizen's

arrest was not made. Further, the witness testimony at trial shows that as well . So, clearly, given the

alleged conduct was outside the officer's presence, anthing culled form a SITA is subject ot the


3/10

exclusionary rule. Your failure to even argue these basis supports the contention that you were being

the "Shoeless Joe" of the WCPD, a lawyer Kevorkian of sorts. Not a good thing. Coughlin can be heard

on the video of the moments prior to the arrest and on Coughlin's own 911 call (and even on Goble's)

suggesting they all wait peacefully until the police arrive to address what the RPD would have deemed

a "civil issue" had Coughlin been the complaining party (witness Coughlin's May 15th, 2012 attempts to

obtain police help in connection with the discovery of Coughlin's stolen bicycle, or a recent 911 all

wherein Coughlin reported a gas station (7 eleven by Home Depot in Northwest Reno) bilkiing him out

of several dollars, etc.).

NRS 171.126(1) : Arrest by private person.:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the persons presence.

Mr. Leslie, I would like you to explain the rationale for the questions you were

asking at Trial. Why ask questions related to whether Coughlin was being held

against his will by the youths prior to the RPD arriving? What was your

rationale for doing that, other than a purposeful attempt to please the prosecution

and support a "citizen's arrest" argument seeking to vitiate the import of the

officer's abscence during the alleged conduct? Further, your questions regarding

some alleged expressed intent to sue Duralde by Coughlin are quite curious,

especially considering Coughlin's statements at the August 27th, 2012 hearing.

Please provide support for your contention that Coughlin ever made such

statements, and then explain what useful purpose was served by interjecting such

an attribution to Coughlin during your cross?

Further, please explain why you chose to go against Goodnight and Coughlin's

own previous contentions in their various filings (including the one's of Coughlin

that merrily chimed in on in agreement with DDA Young and the Court in

seeking to have them stricken from the record, and thereby vitiating 90% of the

useful legal work done on the defense of this case....work that actually did some


4/10

novel legal research and provided explication of just what would justify a Terry

Pat down and support for the contention that facts gleaned from an impermissible

pat down cannot for the basis for a subsequent probable cause to arrest and

conduct a SITA determination. The video demonstrates Duralde instructing

Coughlin not to say anything or speak any further before Coughlin is even able to

provide a response to the Officer's question regarding whether or not Coughlin

had "the phone" (check the tape to see if Duralde said "his phone"), etc.). That

goes directly to whether Coughlinw was demonstraring, as Duralde testified

"uncooperation") which had material significance given that DDA Young harped

on Coughlin's non-compliant demeanor and "being difficult" in justifying the

further detaining Coughlin (which I instructed you to challenge as an issue, but

which you appear to have failed to). Certainly, by following Duralde's order

that he not speak any further, Coughlin was being cooperative and compliant,

and not confrontational. Further, the arrest video demonstrates quite a bit of

cooperation and compliance on Coughlin's part. Additionally, there are

numerous statement's by Goble, Rosa, Zarate, Duralde, and Alaksa that impeach

all three of the witnesses testimony, particulary Goble's statement that "he might

have switched it to the other pocket" when commenting on the phone being "not

there". Better boot up the old County laptop, Mr. Leslie. Oh wait, you will try

to say that is a "threat" and attempt to have RJC Bailiff's come over, once again,

and play bullying enforcer for you in your quest to maintain a well paid position

in a consequence free environment, devoid of any skin in the game. I have never

threatened you with any physical harm, nor have I ever threatened to do anything

illegal to you or anyone with the WCPD, and your receptionist Jessica's lies,

Hylin's lies, the lies you imply Goodnight is making (and I suspect its more a

case of you and Bosler wanting more of a ringer for the DA on the case than

Goodnight was able to provide...enter Jim Leslie, Esq.).


5/10

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of personsuspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of

parole or probation: Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer

encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that theperson has committed, is committing or is about to commit acrime.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this sectiononly to ascertain the persons identity and the suspicious

circumstances surrounding the persons presence abroad. Any

person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may

not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace

officer.

NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any timeafter the onset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the

person so detained shall be arrested if probable cause for anarrest appears. If, after inquiry into the circumstances which

prompted the detention, no probable cause for arrest appears,such person shall be released.

I am demanding that Leslie and the WCPD provide, in writing, research and

investigatory support directed to defending against a contention that "probable

cause" was culled sufficient to meet whatever standard applies. Must factual

support be found for each element of the charge? Please provide legal research and

precedent (including mere persuasive precedent) for an argument that Duralde's

failure to perform any investigation directed to the elements of "taking" "carrying

away" "receiving", etc. vitiate any probable cause finding. Please provide the

results of your legal research directed to the impact of Duralde's only subsequently

to arrest noticing that the Witness Statements mentioned the "guy with a six pack"

who held the phone aloft....support for the contention that such incongruities

vitiate the probable cause finding. Please indicate what a fine tooth comb review

of the Trial audio or transcript show with regard to whether Duralde ever did actually

do any investigation with respect to the phone's valuation prior to his intial

statement upon arriving that he was going to arrest and search and get the phone

back from Coughlin, as well as before the technical point of arrest. Just when did

Goble indicate the phone's value to Duralde? Provide citation to explain just how


6/10

such valuations must be done, what factors must be considered, and whether

Duralde's according absolutely no devaluation to a phone that was bought, allegedy

(Goble's attatements in Drualde's narrative conflict with Goble's trial testiomny as to

whom bought the phone. I am demanding notes on and any recordings anyone with

the WCPD made of the "meetings" with Goble and Zarate that I have been afforded

so little explanation of or opprotunity to participate in by you, Goodnight, Novak and

Carlson. Please conduct follow up investigatory interviews with those witness and

others to the extent allowed under the law.

Zarate's satements to Duralde are heard on the arrest video, the "I saw what

happened". However, nothing is said beyond that. No real indication of what

exactly happened. Further, whether Coughlin had a larcenous intent at the time of

allegedly taking possession of the phone IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL UNDER NEVADA LAW,

and you have failed to address that through legal argument to the court in any way

whatsoever or otherwise ask questions or put on evidence of teh witnesses in that

regard. Additionally, you fail to impeach statements by Goble directed to just how

quickly he became aware of Coughlin having the phone, the extent to which

Coughlin lingered around the scene prior to Goble and his two companionaggressors approaching Coughlin (I want you to investigate and determine the name

of the aggressor whom was "not even a friend" but whom was apparently, invested

enough in the situation to, in goble's testimony, be the one whom was most physical

and aggresive towards Coughlin.

Additionally, please conduct investigation, legal research, and draft argument for my

review related to the obvious inconsistencies in Zarate's testimony with respect to

whether he was "across the skate plaza" when the phone allegedly lit up in

Coughlin's pocket, or whether Zarate was there, or close enough, to have personallywitnesses any such occurence, including Zarate's subsequent assertion that he also

saw Coughlin turn the phone over. And, if Coughlin was so quick to leave after

allegedly receiving the phone, and Goble was able to verify that, then why did

Zarate testify that he called another friend first to see if it was their iphone, then

communicated some more and pieced together information? Maybe it woudl be

worthwhile to actually interviewing Lucy Byington or Nicole Watson to verify

whether Coughlin rode passed then a time or two in a loop around the skate plaza

prior to any such alleged retrieval of the phone, or otherwise demonstrated a

complete lack of "fleeing" or felonious attempt to quickly "carry away". Judge

Sferrazza (who is really, really smart) picked up on the importance of that. Jim, you

come across as not even really comprehending what the elements of the crimes

charged are? You completely failed to address many of them, including, but not

limited to the "taking", "carrying away", intent element (see my pre-trial

memorandum in that regard), and the valuation element.

Mr. Leslie, you approach, beyond what at times appears to be an attempt to just

throw the case, at other times indicates that you decide to find a thing or two to

argue, and thereby deem your work "good enough" not to get disbarred or sued.


7/10

That is a risky approach, liability wise. You can do it, champ! You don't have to rely

on these tacky moves you cling to, where you demand the bailiff's come in and

wreck shop for you on anyone pointing out your sleazy, lazy, incompetent tactics.

Merely addressing the Court in a slow, hyperpretentious delivery just is not going to

cut it. Dig deep. Judge Sferrazza is getting a bit tired of your spin, and it shows.

When he says things like "I realize that" after you respond to a pointed inquiry he

makes with some vague high school civics level schlock about facts and presentation

and how you understand them (ie, you don't, you didn't bother to do much more

than debase Goodnight's "meh" Motion to Suppress with a highlighter. Clearly, thefil ings I submitted on this case are l ight years ahead of anything either of you did.

Jim, you haven't even fi led anything. You presented some Memorandum on

attorney client conflicts, that wasn't even on pleading paper, and did not contain a

single actual fact related to the instant cases (hey, Jim can copy and paste from a

Wikipedia result after a Google search, right on....).

I can still see that look in your eye, Jim, when you looked at the ocr'd, text

searchable, 1,000 page pdf file I had on my laptop of the universe of this case,

revealing that you were just beginning to come to grips with the fact that the gamehad passed you by..."What's that....is that WordPerfect?"....Its OpenOffice. "The

County laptop takes a while to boot up".

Please querry Goble (to the extent legally allowable at this point) by an interview

before the Trial resumes (you don't get to chill until the competency evaluation

comes back and then burst headlong into trial and continue on with your

reprehensible derogation of your duty to your client and your office) as to what

exactly occurred and was communicated to and with him between Duralde and Rosa

and Alaksa, especially from about the 3:35 minute mark on the arrest video to the5:00 minute mark. The arrest video is time stamped by its filed name, and this is

verified by the police reports time stamping, and, perhaps, by the call records you

allege to have subpoened (in a curiously rapid fashion...I would like to see the

subpoena and the records produced, your "hide the ball" from your client approach

is absolutely disgusting, as is your base attempts to coopt modern psychiatry and

innuendo in your quest to avoid doing any actual work, while also buttering up your

political connects). I wish to be present or afforded a recording of any such

investigatory interviews with Goble to the extent legally allowable. Contrary to Mr.

Bosler's take, my research does not reveal any of you are free from potential

personal liability for your misconduct and or malpractice here, and that includes the

mysteriously disappearing Joe Goodnight. Go ahead with your threats Jim, though

you might be careful about putting all that convenienet innuendo on the record

regarding Coughlin's alleged misconduct having some role in Goodnight's removal

from the case at the absolute eleventh hour, thereby terribly prejudicing Coughlin's

defense, wasting court resources, and unnecessarily exposing the County and PD's

office, much less the Court, to the downside of an ineffective assistance of counsel

claim, if not more. It would seem, given this is a community property state, any of

your spouses might be entitled to informed consent with respect to the extent to

which you all continue to recklessly pursue this tact where you take a bullying

negligent approach in performing your obligation and duties, rather than doing


8/10

some actual work.

Sincerely,

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected ofcriminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation:

Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encountersunder circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person hascommitted, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters undercircumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or isviolating the conditions of the persons parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only toascertain the persons identity and the suspicious circumstances surroundingthe persons presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himselfor herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any

peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary toeffect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.

The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity ofthe place where the detention was first effected, unless the person isarrested.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172;1995, 2068)

NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any time after theonset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained

shall be arrested if probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiryinto the circumstances which prompted the detention, no probable cause forarrest appears, such person shall be released.

NRS 171.102 Complaint defined; oath or declaration required.The complaint is a written statement of the essential factsconstituting the public offense charged. It must be made upon:

1. Oath before a magistrate or a notary public; or

2. Declaration which is made subject to the penalty for perjury.


9/10

Obviously, DDA Young's Complains are a study in laziness. Yet the WCPD failed to make any of

the challenges I myself did the work involved to discover.

Zach Coughlin

PO BOX 3961

Reno, NV 89505

Tel 775 338 8118

Fax 949 667 7402

[email protected]

From: [email protected]: [email protected]

Subject: Coughlin: Petit Larceny case

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:47:03 +0000

Mr. Coughlin:

Attached is a pdf copy of the order for competency determination. I understand you were previously

served with this, and it appears from the Certificate of Service you were mailed a copy, and I additionallyserve you via this email.

James B. Lesli e, Esq.

Chief Deputy Publi c Defender

Washoe County Public Defenders Office

350 South Center Street

Fifth Floor

Reno, NV 89509

1-800-762-8031

Direct Dia l: 775-337-4828


10/10

Fax: 775-337-4856

Email:j lesl [email protected]

The contents of this communication and all accompanying documents and attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, are legally privileged ,

and are intended for use and review only by the party sending same and the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipien t, you are hereby

notified that any d isclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action relian t on said contents are CONFIDENTIAL and strictly prohibited. If you

received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 775-337 -4800 to arrange return of the original transmittal. Thank you.
mailto:[email protected]

9 11 12 0204 63341 shoeless jim leslie email to wcpd leslie a

Documents