Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - Las Vegas - Full Court
Barlow (Keith) vs. State (Death Penalty-Direct)
Docket Number: 77055
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Full Court
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, home invasion while in possession of a deadly weapon, and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. Appellant Keith Barlow was convicted based on evidence that he confronted and threatened his off-and-on girlfriend and her other romantic partner and then a few hours later broke into their apartment and shot each of them multiple times.
ISSUES:
The primary issues on appeal are: whether the district (1) erred during jury selection by limiting Barlow’s voir dire questioning, denying his Batson objection, and denying his for-cause challenge; (2) erred by allowing improper expert testimony; (3) erred in the settling of jury instructions; and (4) improperly limited Barlow’s argument during the penalty phase; (5) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in both the guilt and penalty phases; and (6) whether the aggravating circumstance of causing a great risk of harm to more than one person is invalid because the State did not give adequate notice of its theory, the State did not present sufficient evidence, or the aggravating circumstance is duplicative of the multiple-murder aggravating circumstance.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Cohen vs. Padda
Docket Number: 81018 C/W 81172
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - Full Court
This is a consolidated appeal from a summary judgment order and an order denying attorney fees (Docket No: 81018, 81172). In the first matter, Ruth Cohen appeals the district court’s summary judgment order in favor of Paul Padda and Paul Padda Law (the Padda Parties). In its order, the district court held that Cohen was a “nonlawyer” under NRPC 5.4(a) due to her suspended law license and thus could not share in legal fees during the period that she claimed she was owed under a prior agreement. The South Asian Bar Association, Veterans In Politics, Inc., and Jay Bloom submitted an amicus brief in support of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Padda Parties. In the second matter, the Padda Parties appeal the district court’s denial of attorney fees under NRCP 68, contending that the district court abused its discretion in its analysis of the four Beattie factors.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether: (1) fee sharing agreements are enforceable in Nevada where one lawyer is suspended or disbarred; and (2) the district court’s analysis of the Beattie factors constituted an abuse of discretion.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do