[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6569482,"mediaKeyId","3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0","parentId",3183264,"title","Public commenters urge legislative review of Washoe County conviction-integrity practices and prosecutorial accountability","audioSeconds",422,"startMs",2797000,"endMs",3219000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0&start=2797&end=3219","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0/thumbnail_2797000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6569482/Nevada/Public-commenters-urge-legislative-review-of-Washoe-County-conviction-integrity-practices-and-prosecutorial-accountability","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569482-4b8abde8d2849149ad39bb2ae5daaff4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775529804&Signature=Irpctlex30Y9YVwAS9Zv3PkSUFtgll1I5p-KIukFMB5aZ60TZAomXbHJfaO~VNFZdmxXoS~H4jZwM6GJGa0LmXldcIjCHwzrfec8u3kyhbmw2LlldFnxIG2MtGyKjw8trNn0y1zDknRWsJgPIrPF4hIwVZ-CBC7gLk1UxXgo1ohsDGcpR-vaI~Z2lAP9n1FghwfJjWKCOe8k1iBJEW~WlwkxKbNsrm-sqk5m0j3hV4rlzbZk~VMftU5c4R-Wu2rD4GnxzvB9xkFzA1kxTORIk5Ooz7eT1sZ2KobyA~c8lpyTilAeYIdfKjNYVKjgXlTP2RYA61sFSI2QfP~1~BBj7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada State Legislature","date","2025-05-02T21:31:47.86Z","article","During the public-comment portion of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Tonia Brown of Advocates for the Inmates and the Innocent and another speaker raised detailed concerns about how conviction-review requests are handled in Washoe County.

Brown said she filed a complaint that the attorney general’s office received on April 18, 2025, alleging a pattern or practice by the Washoe County District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Committee (CIC). She said the CIC issued a “no review” response in her case despite her providing what she describes as exculpatory evidence that was found in the district attorney’s files. “Basically, what is happening is I filed, against the CIC. I provided them the evidence and I got a no review,” Brown said. She told the committee she has resubmitted complaints and that local law-enforcement agencies (Sparks PD, Reno PD, and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office) submitted the complaint to the attorney general’s office in 2022.

Another commenter identified as Ann Marie Grant said she has reviewed cases in which prosecutors allegedly withheld exculpatory evidence and argued existing internal review mechanisms are not sufficient to ensure accountability. Grant described judicial findings in at least one case and said the conduct resulted in delays, costs and concern about prosecutorial integrity. “Prosecutors need to be held accountable for withholding exculpatory evidence and violating a defendant's right to due process,” Grant said. She urged the Legislature to consider statutory changes that would increase consequences for prosecutors who violate discovery rules, including disbarment and criminal sanctions.

Speakers asked the committee to consider time limits and clearer procedures for handling complaints that allege prosecutorial misconduct. Committee members did not take action during the meeting; these remarks were part of the public-comment record.

The record included written attachments submitted by Brown and references to documents sent to the attorney general’s office; Brown said local media had shown interest in her complaint. No formal referral or committee vote resulted from the public comment at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/2/2025 - Senate Committee on Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","Speakers in public comment asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate alleged patterns of withheld exculpatory evidence by a Conviction Integrity Committee and called for statutory accountability for prosecutors who fail to disclose evidence.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6569487,"Committee considers AB 25 to set NDOC screening ages, remove boot-camp language and allow correctional IDs for notary purposes",253,2375000,2628000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0&start=2375&end=2628","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0/thumbnail_2375000.jpg","/articles/6569487/Nevada/Committee-considers-AB-25-to-set-NDOC-screening-ages-remove-boot-camp-language-and-allow-correctional-IDs-for-notary-purposes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569487-bed7283c8ae3dfc1c1545678d4ef4849/orig.mp4?Expires=1775529804&Signature=cA2omA5jXZDcjmlkIjgOSJt8~5zfXso4D9oFW9iGMxkP2ztkmSmWc-~QBSQTFxPuyat9Y3q7PozYzx-0rfpeNbY9FX6fZCYURCWSNb0dNfUHftFjeZXkzXiUrjjUeeBPqXxlQ0AJLqyYqKMLKOO~VB2huJQUeaOoHOzZ7HhUn4veR6BOyjJOa889K5rZiLoB9esFN8aKglFeWnohSsolCjr8q8IMDaQD7tR9FPH6f799noJCJSWvJ2fmIKAV0DnAG7dLYMUU3fggTb4A55QiKd7zNQNg0pSzac36RBg734ptGpFJqmnIggQbEwaJQAhPP1s4PjQmeknolJHnMSKdLQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","James Dzurenda, director of the Nevada Department of Corrections, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that AB 25 contains three distinct changes concerning NDOC practice.

Dzurenda said the bill clarifies medical-screening ages: mammograms would be provided starting at age 40 consistent with community standards but could occur earlier if a medical provider requires it; pelvic exams would begin at age 21. “We wanted to make sure that the NRS was clear with some type of standards that they use in the community, based upon the American Medical Association,” Dzurenda said.

The bill also would remove obsolete statutory language referring to “boot camps,” a regimen the department discontinued roughly a decade ago. Dzurenda said courts still occasionally issue orders sending offenders to boot camp even though those programs no longer exist. “Boot camps were abolished about 10 years ago or longer,” he said, and the department wants the statute cleaned to avoid invalid court orders.

Finally, AB 25 would permit use of a correctional identification card for notary purposes because many incarcerated people do not have driver’s licenses or other state-issued photo IDs in their possession. Dzurenda said the change had support from court administrators and the attorney general’s office.

Committee members asked whether removing boot-camp language would affect any existing youth programs; a staff clarification noted the change applies only to the Nevada Department of Corrections and would not affect the Spring Mountain Youth Camp program, which the committee described as administered separately.

No members of the public testified in support or opposition. Tonia Brown of Advocates for the Inmates and the Innocent provided neutral testimony noting that men can develop breast cancer and asked whether the bill’s mammogram provisions could accommodate men with medical need. “Is it possible to possibly put men in there if they have some issues?” Brown asked.

The committee closed the hearing on AB 25 after receiving neutral testimony; no vote was taken at this meeting.","AB 25 would set mammogram and pelvic-exam ages for women in NDOC custody, remove obsolete statutory references to boot camps, and permit use of NDOC identification for notarizations; presenters said the changes align services to community standards and reflect that boot camps no longer operate.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6569493,"Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee reviews bill to modernize electronic-signature rules for court filings",185,1960000,2145000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0&start=1960&end=2145","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183264-b7d63ded1e1e811ef42a8e59295f0ca0/thumbnail_1960000.jpg","/articles/6569493/Nevada/Nevada-Senate-Judiciary-Committee-reviews-bill-to-modernize-electronic-signature-rules-for-court-filings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569493-7880d370ae78fc6bbd509356b9b14079/orig.mp4?Expires=1775529804&Signature=JggjVTqVmiff5ZIGLMvJJXsIA4v7A4Bj9QBX0VUvzgu4wmajgjSo6l7XA27zN1xFkiy6ic1JgU9Za1SQz7nDlGnZAswmCe8GTSz7R~NVYjj~tBlPR0yTpIlKPH5VTxld0OAi-Ts8Ya5tN4l~7VAEWoPlxl8pQkDvWZHZDTNIe2TYANVerKDUK1S52X0jpKlWkAwSPOMBAw4~3iPy0zXKHatX0z9KQHJAYdFqBlno4EeyDQQ1J7RuJ4u9dRddI1XMdPislSKKWLOPMl9OOU5IlpDndizxesZjU5OB0zOm-i9N4Rh2WSaFlB8AIPYwk2E7y0Pl92PftfGv2vAIVEjGBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","John McCormick, assistant court administrator for the Nevada Supreme Court, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that AB 18 updates Nevada law to accept modern electronic signatures for certain court filings.

The bill would replace statutory language that requires an image of a filer’s handwritten signature with a reference to the electronic-signature definition found in the Nevada electronic filing and conversion rules, McCormick said. “Electronic filing is an electronic identifier created by computer intended by the party, using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature,” he said.

Supporters said the change would streamline filings and improve court efficiency. Tayler Avery, manager of political affairs for the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports AB 18. “The chamber supports efforts to make the courts more easily accessible to the public,” Avery said, adding that allowing certain legal documents to be submitted with an electronic signature rather than an image will “streamline the submission process and make the courts more efficient.”

At least one neutral witness asked the committee to note a population that currently cannot use e-filing. Tonia Brown of Advocates for the Inmates and the Innocent said the bill as written does not apply to incarcerated people because inmates are not allowed to file electronically. Brown said she recently received a letter from an inmate who lost an appeal despite having signed paperwork through a law clerk; Brown said the court never received the filing. “This is something to consider down the road,” she said.

Committee members asked no follow-up questions about statutory drafting during the hearing. No opposition testimony was offered in person or by telephone, and the committee closed the hearing on AB 18 after receiving the record testimony.

The hearing record shows McCormick described changes to multiple statutory chapters to conform the signature definition to the e-filing rules; he said the bill amends provisions in juvenile procedure, criminal initiation (information/indictment), general criminal procedure, and child-abuse-and-neglect statute language to remove the image-of-signature requirement and reference the e-file rule definition instead. The committee did not take final action on the bill at the hearing.","AB 18 would replace requirements that court filings include an image of a filer’s handwritten signature with a reference to an electronic-signature definition used in Nevada’s e-filing rules; supporters said it would streamline filings while a neutral witness raised concerns about inmates who cannot e-file.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public commenters urge legislative review of Washoe County conviction-integrity practices and prosecutorial accountability

Committee considers AB 25 to set NDOC screening ages, remove boot-camp language and allow correctional IDs for notary purposes

Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee reviews bill to modernize electronic-signature rules for court filings