Nevada bill would limit use of audiovisual testimony at preliminary hearings; sponsors propose 48‑hour notice

Sen. James Orangehall, sponsor, and Las Vegas attorney Scott Coffey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on SB 341 that the bill would restrict use of audiovisual testimony at preliminary hearings to cases in which it is necessary, such as illness or long distance travel, and would add a deadline for prior notice.

The bill, Coffey said, seeks to “clarify when audio visual testimony can be used” so preliminary hearings — often the closest thing to trial in Nevada’s low‑trial‑rate system — provide meaningful in‑person evaluation of witnesses. “I’d much rather be in the room with you in Carson City talking to you directly,” Coffey said. He and Orangehall proposed a conceptual amendment that would shorten a proposed 10‑day notice requirement to 48 hours.

Supporters from public defender offices said the core value of the proposal is notice and limiting remote testimony to truly necessary cases. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office said Washoe is already seeing the practice and described cases where someone off‑screen was coaching a witness. “We prefer in person. But if not, then give us 48 hours so we can prepare,” Knott said. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office urged that audiovisual testimony changes cross‑examination strategy and can hide whether someone off‑screen is prompting answers.

Opponents argued the bill removes judicial discretion embedded in the existing statute. John Jones of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said the existing statute (which allows audiovisual testimony for witnesses more than 100 miles away, for medical reasons, or for good cause) is appropriate and that preliminaries are not trials. “There are reasons not contemplated by our statute where a person who resides within a hundred miles of the courthouse or is otherwise healthy won’t be in town,” Jones said, listing work, military leave and family emergencies as examples. Kelly Crompton representing the City of Las Vegas echoed concerns about taking away the good‑cause exception.

Committee members sought clarifications on remedies when notice is not given. Coffey and the sponsor said missing the deadline would not automatically dismiss a case; courts could grant a short continuance or the parties could agree to proceed by audiovisual means, and the 48‑hour amendment is intended as fair notice to both sides. The panel received the ADKT 5 81 administrative order from the Nevada Supreme Court as background; sponsors said SB 341 is intended to reflect and codify parts of that order.

The hearing concluded with the sponsor saying he would work with stakeholders on the draft and the 48‑hour amendment. No formal committee vote on SB 341 was taken at the hearing.

SB 341 now moves to drafting of a proposed amendment and further committee consideration; committee staff had uploaded an amendment to NELIS during the hearing.