Close Print

Shoeless Jim Leslie

From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 9/11/12 3:51 PM
To: jleslie@washoecounty.us; jbolser@washoecounty.us;
bdogan@washoecounty.us; jgoodnight@washoecounty.us
Dear Mr. Leslie,

Please explain why you refused my express demands to make
arguments at Trial and the Suppression Hearing and cite to specific
laws, cases, and statutes, or otherwise put on evidence related to
the valuation of the property alleged stolen (it clearly was worth
less than the $250 required, as even Goble testified at Trial that is
was worth about $100 at the time of the arrest, and I provided to
Goodnight, and therefore you, evidence and support that it was
worth even less than that.

Please get your investigators working. Carlson admitted he has
done no work on the case, but merely sat in on two hearings,
supporting my contention that you like to leverage your coworkers
for 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 a
Draft for my review immediately of some Motion for Relief from
the ORder following the Suppression Hearing, including, but not
limited to, your failure to cite to and argue the existing facts that
support the following:

NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made:...
2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7
p.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 a
place 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 for
the arresting officer to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged
violation or offense;
(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the
person 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 with
the 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 more
than $1,000.00 and/or be incarcerated not more than six months. In addition to
any 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
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
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.).

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person
suspected 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 the
person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a
crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section
only 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 time
after the onset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the
person so detained shall be arrested if probable cause for an
arrest 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
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 companion
aggressors 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 personally
witnesses 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.
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, the
filings I submitted on this case are light years ahead of anything either of you did.
Jim, you haven't even filed 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 game
had 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 the
5:00 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
some actual work.

Sincerely,
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected 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 the person has
committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is
violating the conditions of the persons parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only 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.
4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to
effect 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 of
the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is
arrested.
(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 the
onset of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained
shall be arrested if probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry
into the circumstances which prompted the detention, no probable cause for
arrest appears, such person shall be released.
NRS 171.102 Complaint defined; oath or declaration required.
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts
constituting 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.
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
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com

From: Jleslie@washoecounty.us
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
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 additionally
serve you via this email.


James B. Lesl i e, Esq.
Chi ef Deputy Publ i c Defender
Washoe County Publ i c Defenders Offi ce
350 South Center Street
Fi fth Fl oor
Reno, NV 89509
1-800-762-8031
Di rect Di al : 775-337-4828
Fax: 775-337-4856
Emai l : jl esl i e@washoecounty.us

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 recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use or taking any action reliant 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.